
’Library of Congress. 


Chap. J lhJS2jLt 
SHELF-Ufei Jl2*_ 


jUNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 

9—167 ■ 







































































. 














'* • 




- 















































- 

’ 



















































* 








* 
























































































I 












































*• 

■ 


























f 

















. 



















































■ 














ia ******-"’ 









‘ ( X/ / 
c SrtzruxJ t X/ • 


^X/ • ^ 

/X (;//sr ///"/ f 'tf>/«*. 


■ 


¥ 


/ 




. • ./ 

r .A s f"i i-%-tr d ^ <&****■ 


Jfaw* Jy 6 . 3 f / * 





■^j- 




,r-- 

/ > -. ... 
^ ‘^~' 

// 

*** •'"* 




^ 7 •*> * * 

fr- ' *’ 


-> /■ / 

^ , 



j| THE LIBRARY?/ 
or C ONG RESS 
ij WASHINGTON j 





-- 
















































% 




THOMAS MVUR, THB POLITICAL MARTYR- 

It gives us great pleasure to Insert the following stanzas, 
written by Mr. Muir, and presented by him to his friend and 
agent, Mr. William Moffat, of this city, when bidding this 
gentleman farewell, on board the transport at Spithead, on 
the eve of his departure for Botany Bay. The lines were 
accompanied with a gold watch and chain. While they con* 
stitute a memorial of the taste and genius of the distin- 
nished martyr, they indicate, the finest feelings, and a com* 
posure and loftiness of mind which Tory persecution could 
not ruffle or subdue. We recently visited Huntershill, in 
the neighbourhood of Glasgow, the property and the re¬ 
sidence,^ Mr. Muir's family; but we know not if the feel¬ 
ings which such a visit is calculated to excite, are more in¬ 
tense and interesting than those which a perusal of the fol¬ 
lowing lines spontaneously inspire: — 

“ Surprise Transport, Portsmouth, March 12,1794. 

“ This gift, this little gift, with heart sincere, 

An exile, wafted from his native land, 

To friendship tried bequeaths, with many a tear 
Whilst the dire bark still lingers on the Stroud. 

“ These sorrows stream from no ignoble cause; 

I weep not o’er my own peculiar wrong; 

Say, when approfing conscience yields applause, i 
Should private sorrow claim the votive tong ? 

11 But, ah i I mark the rolling cloud from far 
Collect the dark’ning horrors of the storm ; 

And, io 1 I see the frantic fiend of war 
With civil blood the civil field deform. 

11 Boll on, ye years of grief, your fated course— 

Boll on, ye years of agony, of blood; 

But oh! of civil rage when dried the source, 

From partial evil spring up general good. 

“ Alas ! my Moffat, from the dismal shore 
Of cheerless exile when I slow return, 

What solemn mins must I then deplore— 

What awful desolation shall I mourn. 

“ Paternal mansion, mouldering in decay, 

Tby close-barred gate may give no welcome kind; 
Another lord, as ling’ring in delay, 

May harshly cry,—‘ Another mansion find.* 

“ And, oh I my Moffat, whither shall I roam ? 

Flow, flow, ye tears, perhaps the fun’ral bier l 
No 1 flourish, Hope ! from thee I ask a home: 

Thy gentle hand shall wipe an exile’s tear* 

“ Yes; we shall weep o'er each lamented grave - 
Of thote who joined us in stern Freedom’s cause, 

And as the moistened turf our tears shall lave, 

These tears shall Freedom honour with applause. 

“ I aoon shall join the dim aerial band— 

This stream of life has little time to flow ; 

Oh J if my dying eyes thy soothing hand 

Snail close—enough—’tis all I ask below. i ! 

“ This little relic, Moffat, I bequeath, 

While life remains of friendship just and pure— 

Tbit little pledge of love, surviving death, 

Friendship immortal, and re.uoion sure. 

(Signed) Thoma* Mwxa.” ! 

— Edinburgh Chronicle, April 22,1837. 







En£ a T>yP~S Jfichn.el9. S1rDa.-via S*iairtT 


























































THE LATE THOMAS MUIR, ESQ., YR. OF HUNTERSMILL. 


(From the Edinburgh Weekly Chronicle, September 1 3, 1845.,) 


The Committee connected with the erection of tho 
Political Martyrs’ Monument, now in progress on the 
Calton Hill, having long known that the mortal re¬ 
mains of this accomplished and patriotic gentleman 
were interred at Chantilly, near Paris, so far back as 
the month of September 1798, felt desirous that they 
should be removed to Scotland, aud placed in a cavity 
of the obelisk prepared for their reception. For this 
purpose, our venerable and respected townsman, Mr 
Wm. Moffat, solicitor (the friend of Muir, and law 
agent at his trial), lately entered into a correspond¬ 
ence on the subject, and our readers will learn, from 
a perusal of the following letter, addressed to him 
from a gentleman resident in Paris, that the object 
in view has been found to be unattainable. In our 
opinion, however, the attempt to remove the bones 
of our lamented countryman from a distant part of 
the world reflects much credit on the members of 
Committee. The exhumation of the remains of the Em¬ 
peror N apoleon and the celebrated Major Andre, and 
$ their transportation to Europe, long after the period 
of their interment, are instances which shew that the 
practice has very recently been countenanced both 
by the French and British Governments. In itself, 
the question involves a great moral principle; and 
when we reflect that it is only a very few years since 
our criminal laws were ameliorated, and that we 
have lately got rid of the horrid evils arising from 
political judges and packed juries, we sincerely trust 
that a new era is approaching more favourable to the 
best interests of humanity :— 

Paris, 30th June, 1845. 

My Dear Sir, —In compliance with the request con¬ 
tained in your esteemed letter of the 17th instant, and 
■with every wish to accomplish the interesting object in 
view, I went out to Chantilly last week, and now sit down 
to report the result of my researches. 

Chantilly is a town in the department of the Oise, within 
ten leagues to the north of Paris. It contains about 2500 
inhabitants, and may be said to be composed of a single 
street, terminated on the eastern extremity by what re¬ 
mains of the chateau and the forest, formerly belonging to 
the Princes of the House of Conde, and now to the Duke 
d’ Aumale, and on the other by the Hospital built and 
endowed by the great Conde. Behind the garden of the 
Hospital, surrounded by a high wall and about half an 
acre in extent, lies the old cemetery of the town. Owing 
to limited size and the numerous interments that had taken 
place in it, this burying-ground becoming unfit for use, 
was shut up about two years ago, and a new one, being 
that now in use, was formed in the environs of the town. 

In exploring the old cemetery the person who now acts 
as sexton, having only held his place for about two years, 
could render me no peculiar assistance. He had succeeded 
another who had filled the situation for forty-two years 
previous to his death, and whose appointment consequently 
dated no further back than the first year of the present 
century. Under these circumstances I had recourse to 
the gardener of the Hospital, who had lived on the pre¬ 
mises for more than twenty years; and on explaining to 
him what I was in quest of, he pointed out a corner, a few 
yards square at the end of the chapel, as the space that 
was destined for the burial of strangers and Protestants, 
and where the body of our martyred countryman must 
have been laid. In this corner there are four grave stones, 
all of them of rather recent erection; but no stone or 
other mark was there to indicate the spot where the mortal 
remains of the unfortunate patriot may have been interred ; 
nor could I discover any such vestige in other parts of the 
cemetery, although it may bs proper to state that many 
of the tombstones were so encrusted with a sort of blackish 
lichen that it would have required the chisel of Old Morta¬ 
lity himself to render the inscriptions in any way legible. 
In the register of Deaths, &c., kept at the Town House, I 
was so far fortunate as to find the act of the decease of 
Mr Muir, of which I procured an extract, and now forward 
it with a translation. On conversing with the Secretary 
or Town Clerk, I learned that the Hospital to which the 


cemetery belonged, had not given “ concessions” or grants 
of the surface, and that from the crowded state of the 
cometery, the ground in question had probably been turned 
over several times within the last forty-seven years; be¬ 
sides as the right to erect a tombstone cost a considerable 
sum, the peculiar circumstances attending the death of Mr 
Muir almost precluded the idea of his last resting place 
being protected by any such memorial. 

The Mayor, with whom I also had a great deal of con¬ 
versation, told me that although he had resided all his life 
at Chantilly, and would be about nineteen years of age at 
the period of Mr Muir’s death, he had no recollection on 
the subject. He stated further that the Mayor and all the 
other persons mentioned in the act of decease, whom he 
knew, had been dead for years. In regard to the eventual 
removal of Mr Muir’s remains, he observed, that it could 
only take place on a petition signed by his heirs addressed 



[PORTRAIT OF MUIR.] 

to the authorities; and that no permission to exhume could 
be granted unless it appeared by a stone, bearing his name 
and covering the whole surface of the grave, that the 
ground below had not been disturbed by subsequent inter¬ 
ments, adding that no such monumental covering seem¬ 
ing to exist, the object in view was unattainable. 

Conceiving that some traditions of Mr Muir might still 
exist, reference was had to several of the inmates of the 
hospital —of whom there are a number of a very advanced 
age—and to some of the elder inhabitants of the town ; but 
from none of them could I learn anything whatever. His 
having lived at Chantilly—the house where he died—his 
funeral—his name—his country, all were entirely un¬ 
known—in fact the only memorial of him which I w r as 
able to procure was the act of decease. 

That no reminiscences of Mr Muir should be found in 
the town where he died, will not appear surprising to those 
who reflect on the singularly eventful times that preceded 


and followed his arrival in this country. In 1798 France 
had hardly emerged from the convulsions of the Revolu¬ 
tion_the Reign of Terror was just passed—Chantilly had 

seen the family of Conde, on whom the town principally 
depended, proscribed and exiled—its chateau destroyed 
and its immense possessions placed under sequestration ; the 
war with England and the continental powers was raging; 
after the Directory came the Consulate and the Empire, 
with their campaigns, victories, and reverses, two resto¬ 
rations and a second revolution. In short, keeping in 
view that for the last half century the minds of the people 
of this country have been kept in a state of constant excite¬ 
ment by public events of the most momentous and engrossing 
nature, it is not to be wondered at that the inhabitants of 
Chantilly should now possess no recollections of the arrival 
and demise there of a stranger, however eminent he might 
be in his own country. In conclusion, I beg to express my 
deep regret that my exertions have not been crowned with 
success. If there are any letters extant written by Mr 
Muir himself or by others after his death, they may per¬ 
haps contain something that would enable me to resume 
my inquiries at Chantilly, to which I will willingly under¬ 
take a second journey. Mr K-of K-, who, I be¬ 

lieve, resided with his father at Chantilly nearly thirty 
years ago, might be able to give some information on tho 
subject—and expecting to hear from you again. I am, &c. 

p.S.—I delayed writing you till I heard from the Se¬ 
cretary—two letters from whom go inclosed—the one con¬ 
firming what I state as to the burying-ground, and the 
other bearing that there is no minute in the books of the 
municipality to show that the authorities were present at 
the funeral. 

No. 1. 

Extract from the public register of deaths, &c., of the 
commune of Chantilly, Oise, for the Year Seven of the 
Republic. This day, the Seventh Pleuviose, Year Seven 
of the Republic, at two in the afternoon : 

In presence of me, the undersigned Louis Jacques De- 
mautes, municipal agent of the commune of Chantilly, 
appointed to receive the act destined to bear evidence of 
the births, marriages and deaths—compeared at the Town 
House, the citizens Jean Phillipe Levasseur, clerk of the 
justice of peace of the Canton, Jean Lepaure, letter-carrier 
of the Post-office, and Fermun Duval Sieur DelOng, all hav¬ 
ing attained the years of majority, and domiciled in this 
commune, with the exception of the citizen Levasseur, 
whose domicile is at Leu, Canton of Cruel, who declared, 
that yesterday, at six in the morning, there died in this 
commune a stranger, whom, by common report only, they 
knew went by the name of Thomas Muir—that they are 
ignorant of the place of his birth, his country and age, 
and that the said citizen Lepaure, on carrying for him some 
newspapers received by the post, and addressed to him 
under the above name, found there the son of Labussiere, 
a lad of twelve years of age, who was the first to apprise 
him of his death ; and after having received this declara¬ 
tion which was made to me by the witnesses above named, 

I went to the place where he died, and assured myself of 
his death, whereupon I drew up the present act, which 
the said witnesses have subscribed alongst with me, after 
it had been read over, day and year aforesaid. 

Signed—Levasseur, Duval Lepaure, Demautes, muni¬ 
cipal adjuncts. For a copy conform to the register delivered - ^ 
by me, the undersigned Mayor of Chantilly, Knight of the 
Legion of Honour, this the 25th June, 1845. 

(Signed) JACQUIN. 

No. 2. 

Chantilly, 29th June, 1845. 

T he hospital of Chantilly keeps no register except for 
those who die in the establishment, and no grant of ground 
was ever made in the old cemetery on account of its too 
limited extent. It is besides very probable that Mr Muir 
was not interred by the clergy—first, by reason of his hav¬ 
ing been a Protestant, and secondly, because the clergy of 
France were at that time proscribed. 

No act or minute attests the interment of Mr Muir bv 
the public authorities ; and at this day these sorts of cere 
monies are never recorded by an act. 

(Signed) DEFRIEUR. 













I/IFFj OF A RADICAL. 

(From the London Correspondent of the Birmingham 
JfrW 2?> Journal.) /&6V • . 

I wnen me French Involution m,ve Yi" n , clU2 1U h,s P rofesslon » 
political opinions and so...... ,r i e ' , tieili eudous impetus to 

in the cou.iZ smm S o 8 a 1 rgt ' ly< but MOt lute " P^-rately, 
reformer lie ( ’ 5 stepped lot-ward as a parliamentary 

I 'utZ.e “Frienl of' I'.T'’" 

,• e , * r »©»as»ot ihe Constitution and of the Peoole ” 

Londi?, “ WU,Cl ? *“ '» oo-«(*r»le with IkSl, 
P it “t n r: € '! n ' :e “ r " IOIn ' ° r " ,e H“0* Of Commons, 
clmed fl,» A"t l"“r nmn 3ter— Pitt, who, in 17»4, Imd de- 
indene.idi'iiov h T’’ ,or ‘ aiou . of 'ho house to freedom imd 
of tl.e mtiinj’itj 111Ier POS 1 "ott of the {treat collective body 
free peon e”' fITT" 3 ”»«*-» '» «. axis,erne „ s l 

artissiSB 

lamf^and f AJl,u was aciuallj considered by Lord Mender - 
foibearin H |y negative,i ! Lord Cl.iet Justice Clerk 
in his summing ud. observed tiio, ’ 

o 


-©jq» snqi « jo ajig aqi tn saSnssBj „ jo joij,. 

‘pjojtnng *ao 9 id- 8 answ r jamtCqi pfo aqi in 3 uojoo[ „ 

-qit*. tiMoj aqi jista RjaSriHjjs ajiqsnoung waj •utqqog n g 
eatj ‘ooj ‘ajaqjL -Aiopaq umoi aqi jo MaiA magaoxa un spnj. 

’tnoo qaiqM ‘pjn^qojtuta aqi oiru dn spaaj sdais nMi-Xin.r 
pun pajpnnq auo jo iqgtg n ‘dot aqi iy •mopgtipj aqq 
ejjt?d qn nj sasjoq-ifand rtospooB jiaqi qowdstp oj pasti pp> 
siunqajaui uaqoo.w aqi qoiqM nio.ij maxis mmnb aqi dn 

aq ‘aorqd aqi jo iqStui Buuuionjnunni am painjdtnaif p . mn 
esq jaqa.\nji aqi jaijy pnBjilug tit siimoi Litriuoa jfqq.. A 1 ^ 

pna suo[ndod isom aqi jo auo omi Ajnanpns dn iot|s n 
-DBjnunm noiioo jo qut q aqi qii^\\ mimoi a.qqsBaiin'q tpig 
iaqio £i3A3 isoaqn jo mqi jo undjamnoo aqi itiq joac. 

Stio til fcl apipqoog jo-Xmisiq aq j (auunp sit joj sno T 
f[tis si if •putqBug ouu tiO{]anpojni! hit .taijn ‘pasuanjd 1 1 
8«M ainianjniwtu uaqooM aqi a.taq.u stmnj A\aj aqi 40 auo j 
ajBpqaoff "apts quoueqi no‘qsyano in saA]f pur? ‘aaaq 
finAA iqSuq- nqop isajnosqo pun isaunani aip a\oii q8u, 

‘«moi aqi nt laajis jndianijd aq. ‘A'.miuao isn{ jo aq)| 

8 tp 01 n.«op ‘ 6 ba\ qotq« ‘arm-q qainqf) inoqn jo nt s 3 ui|p 
’fBJtli apn.t Ataj u jo igniisisnoo <( ‘(nnppaqaojjpapwo‘aWn 
jUBatftuBism n« st?m 11 saum uoxwq uj 'S|pq pmqjo 
M paqoojjaAO ‘qaorp at[i jo s>jnnq aqi uo tfaqnA daap v 
83 pis aqi sauif if *ajtqsnonii r j tilling jo 8 fiA\oi aqi jo is 
tiuqi pajnnits ^|anhsa.iniatd a.totn st nwoi aq ^ 'aiaqi 
pn« p|0 ‘s 2 mt|i aBuruis ^uuui aas iqBtm ar| ‘uaioi ajnpqf 
OJUt UA\op oS o} aotinutpiui pun amn pnq japaAnJi aqi 1 

'iqBqn janaq pnti Mojnqp^ i 
pjnoM oqAA aq ajaqM ‘uoqnis ajnpqooff st a.taq mg mo 
•nois.iwf\[ jo apitrq aqi .iaijn tfpjoqs ajaqi idajs paMmi 
J9Ai|f) i«rn pins si 11—p?q stq go aq>u uitq iaj ‘pnaqput 
jio jaqnABQ aq .TajiaAiui aqi jaqiaqA\ ‘pun i.fajqnig jo ‘sq 
aqi jo mas n if|J 9 tti.ioj ‘[|npj noiapstif) si mq j i( i.tnda( 

^SMopnqs aijtf auioa „ tCfpuaiq uuq inoqn sioahio sttounA 
-BuioB sf aq ajnj atq jb joj ‘ 3 auo« aq istim aiCa sijj • 
aqi jo apis pnnq-ija[ arq in ‘ti 8 no[g noiagsBQ aAoqn ‘na 
aqi no ‘tioisantn pfo atihsajni.iid mqi aiou .13qaAB.11 aqi 
‘aiaqi sar{OBa.t 11 ajojaq ‘mq ‘ajnpt{oog ruo.tj sainuim aa.tq 
-taiiui aq^ *isna-qjnos aqi uo quoMajppng jo siqgiaq aqfil 
-oj aqi 01 ‘isa.vi qijou aqi no jA\ou^f jo ijnad punoj aqi to 
Sutqaia.tts ‘pfSts aqi nodn p«s mou spiq putqjooaj aqj 


•ur 

>pnaqn siooqs aq pun—‘poo§ spioq jadmai sqi jr—‘Btnqi.Cj 
•<u parannqsnn ‘sjo.uai asaqi qn uiojj uuq sjaAipp aouai 
aAiuq v imn amn mg *Riin.i JO Jind iqBij aqi no si n adot 
aonnqa ^nm aq luamoui atq jo Cupuuti inaaouui aqi nt | 
fsjapnio ioq-paj pun sq.inds Bm.iannas pun ‘mnais Butqr 
*naads ina.i§ n m aonmsip w 1x10tj nuq spjnmoi Bu;>{ 

















t 








“ A NOBLER MAN 

LIVES NOT THIS DAY WITHIN THE CITY WALLS.” 









































\ 





> 










< 









% 




1 





































« 





THE LIFE 


OF 


THOMAS MUIR, Esq. Advocate, 

YOUNGER OF HUNTERSHILL, NEAR GLASGOW; 

MEMBER OF THE CONVENTION OF DELEGATES FOR REFORM IN 
SCOTLAND, ETC. ETC. 

WIIO WAS 

TRIED FOR SEDITION 


BEFORE 

THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY IN SCOTLAND, 


AND SENTENCED 

TO TRANSPORTATION FOR FOURTEEN YEARS. 

with 

A FULL REPORT OF HIS TRIAL. 


BY 

/ 

PETER MACKENZIE. 


GLASGOW: W. R. M‘PHUN, TRONGATE; 

SIMPKIN & MARSHALL, LONDON. 

M DCCCXXXI. 

L- 



• ■ 






r . 




< 1 Y 





UArzz. 

.u in]2 











Edward Kliull, Printer, Glasgow. 







•IS 














TO 


THE RIGHT HONOURABLE 

FRANCIS JEFFREY, 

LORD ADVOCATE OF SCOTLAND. 


My Lord, 

Throughout these kingdoms, and even in 
distant lands, your name has long been known as the eloquent 
Advocate of Civil and Religious Liberty. 

Elevated as your Lordship now is to one of the highest 
judicial stations in Scotland, it affords unspeakable satisfaction 
to your countless friends and admirers—among whom let me 
be reckoned one of the most humble, but not the less en¬ 
thusiastic.—It affords, I say, unspeakable satisfaction to one 
and all of us, to find, that you have not forgotten for a mo¬ 
ment, those great and noble Principles, which formerly 
guided your conduct,—the Principles of the immortal 
Charles James Fox ; but that you have now rather given 
them a loftier tone, and will ensure for them, if possible, a 
more commanding attention. 

The circumstance, that, with the exception of your late 
distinguished and ever-to-be-remembered friend, the Honour¬ 
able Henry Erskine, your Lordship is now the first Re¬ 
former who has filled the situation of Lord Advocate of 
Scotland, is of itself enough to fix you completely in the hearts 
of the People. And I am sure I do not overcharge the 
statement when I say, that your Lordship is at this moment 
one of the most esteemed and popular men in Scotland. 



VI 


It is for these reasons—and for another, to which I shall 
presently allude, that I now presume to Dedicate to your Lord- 
ship, in the first instance, the touching and extraordinary 
History of a man—not, I believe, altogether unknown to your 
Lordship, since he was once a distinguished Member of the 
Scottish Bar;—but who, it is well known, was prosecuted 
like one of the vilest criminals, at the instance of one of 
your Lordship’s predecessors in office,—I mean the Right 
Honourable Robert Dundas, 66 of blessed memory,” because 
he presumed to think for himself—to act like an honest man 
—a Christian—and a Patriot, in the worst of times! 

It is unnecessary for me to refer your Lordship more par¬ 
ticularly to the iniquitous—the disgraceful trials which took 
place in Scotland in the year 1793 ; for no man is better 
acquainted with the history of that frightful period than 
yourself. I am much mistaken if your Lordship does not 
share the feeling in regard to them, which was expressed by 
Fox, by Sheridan, Whitbread, and Adam, “ in stronger 
language (as it has been fitly said) than was ever uttered 
within the walls of Parliament.” 

My Lord, If it be true that good and virtuous men were 
persecuted and hunted to death in this country some 40 years 
ago, for advocating the immutable principles of Right and 
Reason-* —of T ruth and Justice —the great comfort to their 
Surviving followers and friends now is, that their predictions 
and principles have already been realized. 66 Were I to be led 
this moment from the bar to the scaffold , I should feel the same 
calmness and serenity which I now do. My mind tells me, that 
I have acted agreeably to my conscience, and that I have en¬ 
gaged in a good, a just, and a glorious cause,—a cause which 
sooner or later must and will prevail, and, by a timely Reform, 
save this country from destruction” 

These, my Lord, were the memorable words of Thomas 
Muir, when he was placed at the Bar of the High Court of 
Justiciary,—surrounded by soldiers with drawn bayonets,—on 
the 31st of August, 1793. And can there be a doubt, that ere 
the 31st of August, 1831, the Reform Bill, for which he paved 
the way, will have been triumphantly carried into Law? The 


Vll 


sentiments-—the very words of Thomas Muir —have been 
already echoed by your Lordship, and other great men, in 
Parliament. But, I presume, no Ghost of any of the Dund- 
asses has yet troubled you. 

Be pleased, my Lord, to peruse these pages—imperfectly 
and hastily written. And my highest ambition will be grati¬ 
fied, if the concluding appeal, I have taken the liberty feebly 
to make, should meet with the approbation of your Lordship. 


PEOPLE! 

OF ENGLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND, 

I now present you with the history of one of the 
most amiable Reformers that ever breathed,—of one of your 
first—your best—your bravest friends,—who suffered more on 
your account than tongue can tell. 

Would that he was now among us to participate in our 
feelings, and to enjoy the reward of his great exertions!— 
But we entertain “ the well-grounded hope,” that he is now 
in a better world, where Tyranny and Corruption cannot 
exist. 

Let us thank God, that we live under the mild and 
paternal sway of one of the best and most Patriotic 
Princes that ever graced the Throne of these Realms. 

Let us reflect,—and be for ever grateful,—that our Gra¬ 
cious King —whom God long preserve—has turned his back 
on our enemies; and that he has called to his Councils, 
the long-tried, firm, and faithful Friends of Freedom! 
For when we turn our eyes to England ! and behold, that 
next to our King, we have a Grey, a Brougham, a Den¬ 
man, and a Russel; —When we turn them to Ireland ! and 
behold that we have an Anglesey, a Plunkett, and a 
Stanley; —To Scotland! and behold that we have a 
Jeffrey, a Cockburn, and a Murray; —may we not feel 
perfectly assured, that in such hands our Rights and Liber¬ 
ties are safe and sacred ? 



V11L 


Reformers!—Let us now only be true to ourselves. We 
have otherwise nothing upon earth to fear.—For who shall 
dare to touch one hair of our heads ? Therefore, with hearts 
full of loyalty, let us, I say, Rejoice ! 

I have the honour to be, 

My Lord, 

And Fellow Reformers, 

Your ever faithful and devoted humble Servant, 

P. MACKENZIE. 


28 , Portland Street, Laurieston, 
Glasgow, April 11, 1831. 


LIFE OF THOMAS MUIR, Esq. 


YOUNGER OF HUNTERSHILL. 


Mr. Thomas Muir was born in Glasgow, on the 24th of 
August, 1765. His parents were highly respectable. Being 
their only son, every care and attention, was naturally paid 
to him. He was instructed in the elementary branches of 
his education, by the late Mr. Daniel M‘Arthur, one of the 
masters of the Grammar School of Glasgow, under whose 
able tuition, he had made such proficiency, that on the 10th 
of October, 1775, when he was yet little more than ten years 
of age, he was sent as a student to the University. For five 
Sessions he attended regularly all the junior classes; but at 
this time, it does not appear, that he gave token, of that 
dauntless spirit of independence, and noble love of liberty, 
which afterwards distinguished his short, but melancholy 
career. His early habits, were rather of a reserved and 
modest nature—and as he paid great respect, to the pious 
and exemplary conduct of his parents, it is believed that his 
attention was at one time turned to the Church, with which 
view he studied Divinity, for a couple of years. His amiable 
and kind-hearted disposition, certainly harmonized with that 
profession; and for his own sake, as well as for the peace and 
happiness of his more immediate relatives—it is perhaps to 
be regretted that he did not follow it. He finally resolved to 
go to the Bar, and the comfortable circumstances of his father 
easily enabled him, to carry that resolution into effect. He 
purchased many rare and valuable books—made himself 
master of several foreign languages—and in short sedulously 
devoted himself, not merely to the science of the law, but to 
the acquisition of every kind of useful knowledge. 

He latterly studied a course of Civil Law, for two years, 
under the immediate direction of the late Professor John 
Millar, of Glasgow, who was probably one of the best Jurists 
that this country ever produced. His works are now known 
throughout Europe, and every lover of liberty reveres his 
memory. Mr. Muir was particularly attached to this good 
and eminent man, and it was while under his tuition that an 
event occurred which created much noise at the time in 


A 



2 


Glasgow, which roused the feelings of the Students, and led 
them to adopt a line of action not more honourable to them¬ 
selves, than it has proved instructive and beneficial to their 
successors. 

During the session 1783-84, one of the learned Profes¬ 
sors,* in consequence of some dispute with his colleagues, was 
suspended by them from his office as a member of the Juris - 
dictio Or dinar in. Whether this proceeding was right, or 
wrong, it excited the indignation of a number of the Students, 
who were attached to the Professor, by his abilities, engaging 
manners, and venerable age. They therefore determined, if 
possible, to procure him redress. At that time the celebrated 
Edmund Burke, was Lord Rector of the University. This 
high office, is in the gift of the Students. It is conferred by 
their free suffrages, on such individual as they think fit, and 
though the election takes place annually, the Lord Rector 
for the time is generally continued in office, for two years suc¬ 
cessively. Mr. Burke was applied to, by the Students, to exert 
his influence in behalf of their favourite Professor—but he 
either treated the application with indifference, or refused to 
interfere. This conduct naturally provoked the Students, 
and they resolved to strip Mr. Burke of the office of Lord 
Rector at the next election—and to confer it on the late 
Robert Graham, Esq. of Gartmore, a genuine Whig, and one 
of the first commoners in Scotland. The majority of Pro¬ 
fessors were greatly offended at this threatened proceeding 
towards Mr. Burke. They did every thing they could to 
prevent it; and in consequence of the powerful influence 
which they then exerted, by threats, intimidation, and other¬ 
wise, they were able for a short time to frustrate the inten¬ 
tions of the Students. Mr. Burke was re-elected in 1784. 

It is in vain to repress the warm feelings of youth—and 
accordingly this conduct of the Professors, just determined 
the Students, to persist more clamorously, for the attainment 
of their object. They now took higher ground, and threat¬ 
ened a petition to His Majesty, to appoint Commissioners to 
inquire into, and redress, the above, and other grievances of 
which they complained. The majority of Professors, by this 
time, had attempted to take the election of Rector into their 
own hands, and to deprive the students of this their only 
popular privilege. But the attempt was manfully and suc- 

* The late John Anderson, Professor of Natural Philosophy, and the 
distinguished founder of the Andersonian Institution, to whom the citizens 
of Glasgow, and the friends of science throughout the world, are so much 
indebted. 


3 


cessfully resisted. Mr. Graham was triumphantly elected 
Lord Rector in the session of 1785. # And it is worthy of 
remark, that from that day to the present, the Students of 
the University of Glasgow,—to their honour be it spoken,— 
have been peculiarly tenacious of their privileges, and with 
only one or two exceptions, have never since failed to choose 
as their Lord Rectors, men, the most distinguished in the 
land, as advocates for popular rights, and for civil and reli¬ 
gious liberty. We need only mention, in this short but 
splendid array, the living names of Francis Jeffrey—Sir 
James Macintosh—Henry Brougham—Thomas Campbell— 
and the Marquis of Lansdowne. 

Mr. Muir participated warmly in the feelings of his fellow 
Students on the above occasions. He now threw off his wonted 
habits of reserve, and became one of their most enthusiastic 
and admired leaders. With others, his companions, it was 
alleged, that he had written some smart offensive squibs 
against certain of the Professors—a practice which is fre¬ 
quently resorted to, in the heat of political debate, and is 
sometimes amusing and harmless enough. But this was a 
sin that could not be tolerated, in the present instance, and 
accordingly, early in the next session, a circular letter was 
despatched from the Faculty Hall, to all the Professors, 
enjoining them not to admit within their classes Mr. Thomas 
Muir and twelve other young gentlemen named in it. This 
step, whether it was harsh or proper, justifiable or unjustifi¬ 
able, created a good deal of sensation within and without 
the walls of the College. Mr. Muir was earnestly urged to 
make an humble, and humiliating apology, to the offended 
Professors, as the means of restoring him to favour; but he 
pointedly refused to do any thing of the kind, and turned his 
heel on the University of Glasgow with feelings of indignation 
and disgust. He remained, however, on terms of personal 
intimacy and friendship with Professors Anderson and Millar 
to the last. 

He now went to Edinburgh, where he studied for two 
years longer, the different branches of Law, &c. in that Uni- 

* We find Mr.-*Xjraham founded, in perpetuity, a prize, being a gold 
medal, of the value of at least five pounds, to be presented annually to 
the Student who should write the best Discourse on Political Liberty ; the 
medal to contain this motto, beneath a figure of Liberty presenting a wreath 
of laurel, “ Liberlate extincta nulla virtusP We mention this in order 
that the Students, now, may take the hint, and see whether the Professors 
have religiously adhered to the special intention of the donor, by awarding 
this Gold Medal to the author of the best discourse on*Political Liberty. 


4 


versity; and in the year 1787 lie was admitted a Member of 
the Faculty of Advocates. 

Deeply versed in the erudition necessary for a lawyer, and 
enriched with a store of general knowledge, he set out as an 
advocate, without any thing to hope for from the favour of 
the great, or from an extended circle of influential friends. 
His talents were soon admired, and he obtained considerable 
practice and reputation at the bar, much earlier than is gene¬ 
rally the case, or than he himself could have anticipated. He 
was a fluent, and eloquent speaker, and always evinced uncom¬ 
mon zeal and anxiety, for the interests of his clients—qualities 
which were of course greatly in his favour. But amidst the 
fatiguing routine of business, and the seductive amusements 
of a great city, he did not abandon those early habits of 
piety and devotion, which he imbibed under his father's roof, 
nor was he ever lukewarm in the cause of religion.* As an 
Elder of the parish church of Cadder he frequently, as in 
other places, extended his charity most liberally to the poor. 
He has often been known to plead the cause of the injured 
and oppressed, sometimes successfully, before the Courts, 
without fee or reward. And frequently, in the General 
Assembly of the Church of Scotland, has he exerted his 
talents, in behalf of its venerable tenets. 

This amiable man,—for such surely we may call him,—had 
now been about five years at the Bar, and was advancing 
rapidly, to the head of his profession, when the malignity of 
party spirit broke out against him, and speedily accomplished 
his destruction. 

It is well known that the French Revolution of 1793, created 
a prodigious sensation in this country, the effects of which are 
not yet eradicated, if they ever will. Violent political parties 
arose, who approved, and condemned it. A mind cultivated, 
and sanguine, like Mr. Muir's, could not behold with indif¬ 
ference, the dawning and progress, of that great event. The 
blow aimed at priestcraft—the abolition of hereditary offices 
and honours—the recognition by a great people, of the first 
principles of freedom, and just government—the obstacles 
which opposed it—and the numerous advantages which it 
promised to the world,' and to posterity, ip,11 conspired to 
interest in its behalf the intelligent of all nations, and to 
attract their attention to the causes which produced it. 

About this time, or rather before the French Revolution 

* Vide Correspondence between him and the Rev. Mr. Dunn, inserted in 
the Appendix. 


actually broke out, an Association had been formed in London 
under the name of the “ Friends of the People,” for the purposg_^_, 
of procuring a Reform in Parliament. To preserve, or rather 
to restore, the purity, of the British Constitution;—to keep 
within proper bounds, the already overgrown influence of the 
Crown ;—to secure the independence of the House of Com¬ 
mons ;—to render its members, what they have always pre¬ 
tended to be,—the “ representatives of the people—to con¬ 
solidate their interest with that of the nation ;—to check cor¬ 
ruption and prodigality;—and to avert the horrors of a 
Revolution among ourselves,—were the important objects, 
which this Association held up to view. They published an 
Address, which, without containing any specific plan of 
Reform, was calculated in the first instance, to rouse the 
attention of the Nation to the subject. This Address came 
forth under powerful auspices, for its immediate promoters 
were men, of the first character in the realm, either as sena¬ 
tors or philosophers. And there can be no doubt that a 
majority of the people, instantly, and cordially, responded to it. 

Meanwhile the French Revolution was making rapid 
strides—and a strong desire began to be manifested by the 
people of this country, for political information, on that, and 
other subjects, more nearly concerning themselves. This 
information, when obtained, only enabled them to see more 
clearly the nature of their own rights, while it laid open the 
errors and defects, which had unfortunately crept into our 
own government, and consequently augmented the desire for 
Reform. 

At this ticklish period, Mr. Muir stepped forward, to aid, 
and assist, the cause of the people. On the 16th October, 
1792, a public meeting was held within the Star Inn, Glas¬ 
gow, at which his friend, the late Colonel Dalrymple of For- 
del, presided. Mr. Muir, and many of the respectable 
inhabitants of Glasgow, attended that meeting, and formed 
themselves into an Association, under the title “ Friends of 
the Constitution , and of the People ,” the object of which was, to 
co-operate with the Friends of the People in London in pro¬ 
curing a Reform of the House of Commons. Citizens of 
every description, were invited to attend the meeting, and 
behold the purity of its proceedings. Before any person 
could be admitted as a member of the Association, it was 
incumbent on him to subscribe a declaration, expressing his 
adherence to the government of Great Britain, as established 
by King, Lords, and Commons; and it was strongly recom¬ 
mended to the office-bearers of the Association to pay par- 


6 


ticular attention to the moral character of those who applied 
for admission. We find, that at this early period, the Glasgow 
Association, transmitted a vote of thanks to the present Pre¬ 
mier, then the Honourable Charles Grey, for his exertions in 
the cause of Reform. His answer to it was that 64 to deserve 
well of my country has always been the height of my 
ambition .” 

On the above principles, and having the single object of 
Reform in view, numerous Associations, or Societies, were 
formed at that time in towns, and parishes, throughout Scot¬ 
land, composed principally of persons belonging to the middle 
ranks of life, who have always been regarded, as the most 
intelligent, independent, and valuable part of the nation. 

Mr. Muir enjoyed great presence of mind, which never 
forsook him on any occasion, and that good quality, coupled 
with his ready tact, and fluency of language, eminently fitted 
him to shine, in public discussions. Accordingly, in these 
Societies, as elsewhere, his honourable profession, and envi¬ 
able talents, soon made him the object of general attention. 
He became a popular member of the Society in Glasgow, 
Kirkintilloch, and other places in Scotland, to which he was 
invited; and when he attended these Societies, or any other 
Society, having for its object the cause of Reform, he always 
spoke in its behalf with energy, propriety, and effect. He 
conjured the people, to adhere steadily, to the great principles 
of the Constitution. He put them on their guard, against 
the villanous seduction of hired spies, who then unhappily 
had begun to brood in the land;—and, above all, he pointed 
out to them, the dangerous consequences, of the least tumult 
or insurrection, among themselves, which would be fatal to the 
object of their Association, and highly criminal. 

The Right Honourable William Pitt was Prime Minister 
of this country in those days. Our attention must now for 
a moment, be directed to him—and certainly nothing can be 
more instructive, and withal more humiliating, than to mark 
the flagrant political apostasy, of great public men. 

In the year 1782, (before he was captivated with the 
charms of office) it is notorious that Mr. Pitt (in conjunction 
with the then Duke of Richmond) was a bold, and deter¬ 
mined advocate, in favour of Reform. He went the utmost 
lengths to which that measure has ever been proposed to be 
carried by its most violent partizans. He was, in truth, an 
advocate for Annual Parliaments, and Universal Suffrage. 
He declared 44 that the restoration of the House of Commons 
to freedom and independency, by interposition of the great 


7 


collective body of the nation, is essentially necessary to our 
existence as a free people.” He declared that “ an equal 
representation of the people, in the great council of the 
nation, annual elections, and the universal right of suffrage, 
appear so reasonable to the natural feelings of mankind, that 
no sophistry can elude the force of the arguments which are 
urged in their favour ; and they are rights of so transcendent 
a nature, that in opposition to the claim of the people to their 
enjoyment, the longest period of prescription is pleaded in 
vain. They were substantially enjoyed in the times of the 
immortal Alfred—they were cherished by the wisest Princes 
of the Norman line—they formed the grand palladium of our 
nation—they ought not to be esteemed the grant of royal 
favour—nor were they at first extorted by violence, from the 
hand of power. They are the birthright of Englishmen— 
their best inheritance, which, without the complicated crimes 
of treason to their country, and injustice to their posterity, 
they cannot alienate or resign. They form that triple cord 
of strength , which alone , can be relied on , to hold , in times of 
tempest , the vessel of the state.” 

Such is a small specimen of the language of a man, who 
has often been called, by his warmest friends and admirers, 
“ the Pilot of the State.” If the language had even been 
somewhat more moderate, or subdued, the country would 
have been grateful for it. But Mr. Pitt became Prime 
Minister in 1784, and gave his former professions the lie ! 
Ah ! it would have been well for the country, if he had 
stopped here, and done nothing more. We are afraid we 
shall be obliged to notice him again in no very flattering 
terms. 

The history of the British Constitution shows, that ati ever 
watchful jealousy, on the part of the people, is its animating 
principle, to which it is mainly indebted for its excellence 
and permanency. If this jealousy, sometimes wrong, but 
oftener right, and always offensive-to men in power, were 
once tamed and suppressed—if, instead of the people judg¬ 
ing about the government, the government should presume 
to judge, and control, the opinions of the people, the forms 
of the Constitution might remain, but its spirit and character 
would be for ever gone. In such a crisis an honest and 
impartial jury becomes our only safeguard. 

These Reform Associations of 1793, by reason of their 
prosperity, and accumulated moral strength, became highly 
offensive to the Administration of Mr. Pitt. And, with a 
view to divert the attention of the public from them for a 


8 


little, it was whispered by some of the ministerial journals of 
the day, that the Ministry itself, in Parliament, would bring 
forward a plan of Reform calculated to meet the wishes of 
the nation. This flattering prospect was hailed with trans¬ 
port by many, who augured from it the preservation of peace 
—the diminution of public burdens—the improvement of com¬ 
merce—and, in short, a long succession of happy days. But 
the real and intelligent friends of Reform, after what they 
had witnessed, could place no reliance on the professions of 
the Pitt Administration,* or its hirelings, on this subject. 
These friends, therefore, did not relax their labours for a 
moment in the good cause. Mr. Muir was still the most 
active among them. 

Various public meetings, or “ Convention of Delegates” 
(as they were called), from all the different Reform Societies 
in Scotland, were held in Edinburgh during the years 1792, 
and 1793, at which Mr. Muir, and his friend, the Earl 

_of, Selkirk (then Lord Daer), frequently presided. At one 

of these meetings, (21st December, 1792,) Mr. Muir read the 
celebrated Address from the Society of United Irishmen in 
Dublin to the Reformers in Scotland, which we believe was 
transmitted to him by his friend Mr. Archibald Hamil¬ 
ton Rowan, who we understand still survives, and is one of 
the most distinguished men and venerable patriots in Ireland. 
This Address is couched in warm and glowing language. 
What, for instance, can be more beautiful, or more gratifying 
to the feelings of a Scotchman than the following lines, being 
its first paragraph ? 

46 We take the liberty of addressing you in the spirit of 
civic union, in the fellowship of a j ust and a common cause. 
We greatly rejorce that the spirit of freedom moves over the 
face of Scotland—that light seems to break from the chaos of 
her internal government; and that a country so respectable 
in her attainments in science, in arts, and in arms; for men 
of literary eminence ; for the intelligence and morality of her 
people, now acts from a conviction of the union between 
virtue, letters, and liberty; and now rises to distinction, not 
by a calm, contented, secret wish for a Reform in Parliament, 
but by openly, actively, and urgently willing it, with the 
unity and energy of an imbodied nation. We rejoice that 
you do not consider yourselves as merged, and melted down, 
into another country, but that, in this great national ques- 

* How nobly have the present Ministry—unlike that of Pitt—redeemed 
its promise to the country! 


9 


tion, you are still Scotland—the land where Buchanan wrote, 
and Fletcher spoke, and Wallace fought!” 

Yet this address,—the whole tenour of which—is highly 
complimentary to the Scottish nation, and breathes a spirit of 
patriotism and peace, rarely equalled, was actually denounced 
in the year 1793, as a species of wicked and abominable 
Sedition ! Is it—can it be a sin, for us, the youthful Reformers 
of the present day, to step forward and attempt to rescue the 
character of our generous neighbours, as well as our own fore¬ 
fathers, from such an imputation ? In the year 1831, who shall 
say, that this is sedition? 

The ministry of Pitt had now boldly set face against all 
and every kind of Reform. The patrician policy, of ancient 
Rome, seems to have been resorted to, and it has been alleged, 
and there is strong reason to believe, that a war with 
France was actually courted just to engross the public 
attention—to sink these societies for Reform altogether— 
and to arm that Ministry with a vast accession of influence 
and military power. This, by the bye, looks something like 
the game, which that poor silly old tyrant Charles the 10th 
and his Polignac Ministry, thought they could play to advan¬ 
tage last year in France, when they sent their armament to 
Algiers. At any rate, there cannot be the smallest doubt, 
that under the auspices of the Pitt Ministry, the principles of 
the old French Revolution were industriously and shamefully 
misrepresented, in order to fix odium on the friends of Reform 
in this country, who, it was said, intended to imitate the 
“ bloody example’’ of the French. These friends of Reform 
were called a set of traitors—pillagers—and cut-throats. Not 
a word in the vocabulary was black enough for them. They 
did not receive credit for one single good intention, no not 
one. The very word “ Equality ” which had been adopted 
by the French, to signify an equality of political rights, and pri¬ 
vileges, was gravely explained by our clergy to mean, an equa¬ 
lity oi property. Flence the Reformers were called “ levellers.” 
Sermons were preached, up and down the country, in favour of 
passive obedience to rulers, alias the Divine right of Kings: 
and because the Reformers could not swallow that doctrine, 
they were called “ Demagogues” The revolutionary excesses 
in France, which every honest Reformer sincerely lamented, 
were quaintly ascribed to the evil genius of 66 a democratical 
system of government.” And it cannot be forgotten that 
Edmund Burke (not saying any thing of the thousands of small 
fry who swarmed about the Treasury) received a goodly pen¬ 
sion of some thousands a-year for traducing the French Revo- 


10 


lution—for calling his own countrymen (the Reformers) “a 
Swinish multitude,” and other bad names, which were continued 
to be heaped upon them, down till the days of Sidmouth, Castle- 
reagh, & Co. Better manners fortunately, have now got among 
us—yet by the above, and a thousand other artifices, the Min¬ 
istry of Pitt, contrived to gull the country, and blazoned forth, 
that the friends of Reform, were the deadly enemies of the 
Constitution. 

The alarm thus sounded, and too generally believed, was 
dexterously improved by the Ministry. They played so well 
on the fears, and feelings, of the Nation, that they thought 
they might safely try their hand, and make a few State experi¬ 
ments, on the persons, and feelings, of the Reformers. They 
accordingly singled out some of the most active of these Re¬ 
formers against whom the artillery of the law was ordered to be 
directed with all its fury. Down came the Right Honourable 
Henry Dundas, Lord Advocate, from London. He set the 
machinery of the High Court of Justiciary in order;—and 
a better Advocate for a State prosecution, could not be found. 
Not a single Reformer, that came through his hands, had the 
least chance of escape—one and all of them were found guilty 
—Of what? The reader will see by and bye. 

Mr. Muir was one of the first Reformers laid hold of in 
Scotland. On the 2d day of January, 1793, he was apprehended 
and carried for examination, before the Sheriff’of Edinburgh, on 
a charge of Sedition. Acting in conformity to the course which 
he had uniformly at the Bar, recommended to others to observe, 
he declined to give any answer to the special questions which 
w 7 ere put to him, because he considered that such examina¬ 
tions, were incompatible with the rights of the subject. Accu- 
sare nemo se debet nisi coram Deo . He was liberated, at this 
preliminary stage of the business, on finding sufficient bail 
for his appearance on some future occasion. 

The situation of Mr. Muir now became extremely un¬ 
pleasant. Not only was the cause he had espoused scandalously 
traduced, but the friends of it, were wantonly persecuted. And 
God knows, it must have been appalling enough, even to a 
stout heart, to fall under the lash of the Lord Advocate of 
Scotland in those days, in a political prosecution, projected by 
the Ministry, and for the success of which they panted. Yet 
Mr. Muir never flinched from, or belied, his political prin¬ 
ciples one moment. Indeed, he has been often heard to 
declare, that he would rather go to the scaffold than make 
the least surrender of them. Truly it may be said of him 
that he was— 


11 


A firm,—unshaken,—uncorrupted soul 
Amid a sliding age. 

One circumstance annoyed him greatly. He thought he 
had secured many professional friends at the Bar, as well as 
in other places, who would have stuck to him to the last. 
They now, either knit their brows at him, or shunned his 
society altogether,—while others, in a more elevated station, 
did not hesitate to treat him, with rude insolence. In doing 
this they only imitated the example set them at head¬ 
quarters.* 

Mr. Muir now resolved to leave this country for a short 
time, and visit France. Some of his friends have regretted 
that he took that step, because it gave his enemies an addi¬ 
tional reason to traduce and malign him. In fact, any man 
in this country, who held the least communication with 
France, at that period, was reckoned a traitor; and accord¬ 
ingly, it was stated, that Mr. Muir had gone to France as an 
“Envoy or Ambassador from the Friends of the People,” to aid 
the Revolution in that country, and to lay the plan for kind¬ 
ling it in his own. Nothing could be more false. The real 
motive which induced Mr. Muir to visit France, was, that he 
might shun the abominable treatment to which he was exposed 
in this country, and have his feelings gratified, and his mind 
instructed, by witnessing the astonishing change that had 
taken place in the habits and sentiments of a great people. 

Nor did Mr. Muir leave this country for France in a 
sudden or clandestine manner. He openly avowed his inten¬ 
tion of going thither;—and he took care, to instruct his agent, 
Mr. James Campbell, then a respectable Writer to the Signet, 
in Edinburgh, and latterly, an eminent, and respectable Soli¬ 
citor, in London, to apprize him, the moment that any crimi¬ 
nal Libel or Indictment was raised against him, in order that 

he might return home and meet it. 

© 


* Can it ever be forgotten, that Robert Burns—the immortal Bard of 
Scotland—who to the disgrace of his country was placed in the miserable 
situation of an Excise officer, from which he never was elevated, was actu¬ 
ally on the eve of being turned out of that situation, because he presumed 
to advocate the cause of Reform and Liberty.—Poor Burns thus tells the 
story himself, in a letter to Mr. Erskine of Mar, 13th April, 1793: “ Indeed 
(says he) but for the exertions of Mr. Graham of Fintry, who has ever 
been my warm and generous friend, I had, without so much as a hearing, 
or the slightest previous intimation, been turned adrift, with my helpless 
family, to all the horrors of want.” And in the same letter he states that 
the Board of Excise had issued orders to him, “ that his business was to 
act, not to think; and that whatever might be men, or measures, it was for 
him to be silent and obedient .” Such tyranny !—and to such a man !! 


12 


Mr. Muir arrived in Paris the evening before the execution 
of Louis XVI:—an event which he greatly deplored, for 
whether or not, it was necessary, to satisfy the justice of the 
French nation, he saw that it would exasperate the other 
Crowned heads of Europe, who would likely lead their sub¬ 
jects into a war, and thus retard the growth of freedom. He 
judged rightly: Oreat Britain, already in an attitude of 
menace, blew the first trumpet, and the Nations flew to arms. 

The clash of bayonets,—the fears of a foreign invasion,— 
the victories of Napoleon Bonaparte, &c. &c. kept down 
for about twenty years the voice of the Reformers. The 
cause itself lay dormant till the 44 Holy Alliance” gave it a 
shake in 1814, which roused the spirit of the old Reformers, 
and opened the eyes of the new. In 1817, thousands of Re¬ 
formers transmitted petitions to Parliament, expressing their 
regret, that the blood, and treasure, of the nation, had been so 
long and lavishly squandered, upon the Continent; and now 
that peace was restored, they earnestly prayed, that Parlia¬ 
ment would be pleased to turn its attention to the evil of its 
own ways, and satisfy the country by effecting a wise and 
practical Reform. We know how these petitions were treated. 
The Administration of Lord Liverpool, the members of 
which had been the apprentices of Mr. Pitt, set up the cry 
that the Church and the Constitution were in danger ! This 
answered the purpose most admirably for a little. The Re¬ 
formers were again accused of entertaining most horrible 
designs, and their petitions were scouted. They nevertheless 
persevered: and if thousands of Reformers existed in 1817, 
they increased to tens of thousands in 1819 and 1820. T.he 
cry of the Ministry now, was, that 44 Plots and Con¬ 
spiracies” existed in the country, and unfortunately the- 
rash conduct of a few weak men gave a handle to the 
Ministry and their retainers, to run down the whole body of 
Reformers. The result was, that we had a few executions 
for High Treason,—some Gagging bills, and a suspension of 
the act of Habeas Corpus . 

Enough for that period; but, judging from these examples, 
we are persuaded, that if the question of Reform had been 
fairly thrust on the attention of the Duke of Wellington and 
his late Ministry, they, as a dernier resort, would have 
appealed to these recent disgraceful burnings in England,— 
which every sensible man wonders at,—and every good man 
deplores. We have indeed heard it, somewhere quaintly 
stated, that 44 the deceased Ministry left the troubles of the 
country, -a legacy to Earl Grey, who having taken out letters 


13 


of Administration, is acting as executor to the Will, of the 
Duke of Wellington .”* 1 

But thank God, the system of gaggery, and delusion, which 
so long existed in this country, is happily at an end. If, 
some few years ago, there was only a handful of Reformers in 
this country—how happens it that there are now millions of 
them ? How happens it that the voice of the people is now 
so united, all powerful, and commanding? And that die 
question of Reform now lies at the heart, almost of every 
man, and is on the eve of being triumphantly settled?—We 
answer—because we have a gracious King—a liberal Ministry 
—and an enlightened People. The Boroughmongers of 
England, are now driven to their last ditch.—Every hour is 
fast finishing them.—The trade of a spy is out of repute. And 
the doors of the Treasury are shut, we hope for ever, against 
these, and all the other unprincipled men, of former times. 

And now, as if to enable us, to expose the blind and 
crooked policy of the Pitt Administration, and to mock at 
the fears of the old alarmists, we, the inhabitants of Great 
Britain and Ireland, have clapt our hands with joy at the 
late glorious Revolution in France, and have openly and 
cordially, addressed that heroic people, calling them our 
friends, and brothers, in the cause of Freedom. 

We beg pardon for this digression, which we hope will not 
be considered impertinent, and recur to the narrative. 

While at Paris (where he remained for about six months), 
Mr. Muir was introduced to Barras, Condorcet, La Fayette, 
and many other noble and distinguished individuals, from 
whom he experienced numerous acts of hospitality and 
kindness. And on the 23d January, 1793, he thus writes from 
France, to his agent, Mr. Campbell. 

“ I wrote you from Calais, and from Paris, and impatiently 
expect your answer. Write me fully about my private 
affairs, but about nothing else. Whenever you and my 
friends, judge it expedient, or proper, I will immediately 
return; but I cannot leave Paris without regret. I am 
honoured by the notice, and friendship of an amiable and 
distinguished circle; and to a friend of humanity, it affords 
much consolation to find, according feelings, in a foreign 
land.” 

And shortly afterwards, he again writes to Mr. Campbell.— 
* Vide Examiner , 16th January, 1831. 


14 


ct Whenever you think it proper I shall return. At the same 
time, honoured as I am, by the civilities, and attention, of 
many amiable characters, it would be with reluctance, I could 
quit Paris for a month or two.” 

During his absence, however, the dirty work of persecution 
was keenly hatching against Mr. Muir in this country. Many 
individuals, who enjoyed his confidence and friendship, were 
now strictly examined, by official functionaries, as to the tenor 
even of the private conversation which had passed between 
them. Some, who had perhaps never thought seriously on 
the subject, now began to look grave,-—to shake their head, 

“ And on the winking of authority 
To understand a law.” 

Others, from a pitiful desire to “ curry favour” with the men 
in power, condescended to act like pettifoggers in procuring 
evidence against him. And not a few who were once proud 
to have called him their friend, seeing that his back was 
turned, and that it was fashionable to run him down, basely 
forsook all pretension to his esteem, and joined the ranks of 
his known enemies. As an example of all this, we are con¬ 
strained by a sense of duty to point out one individual,—a 
reverend gentleman too, now no more, not for the purpose of 
injuring his memory, for that cannot be done, since it is 
already too well known, but because it is useful to see how 
one of the ministers of religion, conducted himself, in a 'political 
prosecution in this country—and at our own doors—in the 
year 1793. 

The reverend gentleman, to whom we refer, had known 
Mr. Muir from his infancy. They were bosom friends, 

“ Coupled and link’d together 
With all religious strength of sacred vows 

And after Mr. Muir had gone to the bar, and was rising to 
eminence, this reverend friend not only kept up a corre¬ 
spondence with him, but used frequently to sojourn, under 
the hospitable roof of his parents, and to pour into their ears, 
sweet words of praise, about their darling son. He thus 
acquired their unbounded confidence. He applauded the 
political tenets of Mr. Muir. Nay, he was himself a reformer 
—at least he pretended to be so, and actually recommended 
some of the very books for which it will be seen Mr. Muir 
was afterwards condemned for the having in his possession. 
But the moment the ministers of the Crown denounced Mr. 
Muir, that moment this minister of religion turned upon him 


15 


like a serpent. His own sting would have been powerless, 
because, for aught that appeared, Mr. Muir had never uttered 
one syllable in his presence of a criminal or seditious nature;— 
but, in order to supply that deficiency, he did not scruple 
to fish for evidence against him in every quarter where he 
thought he would be successful. He attended the initiatory 
examination of some of the witnesses for the Crown before the 
Sheriff, and “ coaxed them to speak out.” And so great 
was his zeal for the prosecution, that when the Trial itself drew 
nigh, he left his parish, and voluntarily journeyed to Edin¬ 
burgh, a distance of forty miles, and, without being subpcened 
he actually attempted to plant himself in the witnesses’ box, as 
an evidence for the Crown, in regard to facts which must now 
rest with his own conscience. These things are not exagge¬ 
rated. They were proved on the trial—and other facts of a 
more sickening description, were about to be unfolded by Mr. 
Muir, when he was prudently stopped by the Lord Advocate, 
who, with all his zeal for the prosecution, could not defend 
such evidence. If the public now, should be anxious to know 
the name of this reverend gentleman, we beg leave to refer 
them to the Appendix, where they will find it. And we grieve 
to add, that he was afterwards placed on the Pension List of 
Scotland, for no other reason that we can learn, but as a 
reward for his services at that period.* 

We have high authority to back us, on these, and some 
other sore points. See, for instance, what the Edinburgh Review 
says, of April, 1810, No. 31 :—“ We speak not from hearsay, 
or from fancy, but from distinct and personal recollection ; for 
fifteen years have not passed over our heads, since every part of 
the island, from the metropolis, to the meanest village, that 
supports an attorney, or a curate, teemed with the wretched 
vermin, whom we are in vain attempting to describe. We 
speak, indeed, from notes that are still fresh and legible; for 
turn which way we will, we now see almost all the places of 
profit and trust in this island, filled with persons for whose 
elevation we should find it hard to account, if we did not 
look back to their apprenticeships in 1794 and 1795. We 
speak from a feeling recollection; for, where did this unut¬ 
terable baseness—this infinite misery—this most humiliating 
curse, fall so heavily, as in the very city where we now 
,ymte?” 

If such be the character of the Witnesses against Mr. Muir, 

* Look at the Pension list—and see if there are any ** Lapslies” on it 
still! 


16 


(though we gladly state, that there were a few most honour¬ 
able exceptions among them,) the reader, we are afraid, will 
not be prepossessed in favour of his Judges and Jury—but 
every person will, of course, candidly judge for himself, on a 
review of the whole circumstances. 

Mr. Muir was at last indicted before the High Court of 
Justiciary for Sedition. It was impossible for him, by reason 
of the war then raging, to return from France to meet his 
trial in Edinburgh, on the day originally fixed for it by the 
Crown, viz. 11th, afterwards altered to 25th February, 
1793, and he wrote and transmitted the following Address 
“ To the Friends of the People in Scotland 

“ Upon the evening of the 8th of this month I received 
letters from my father, and from my agent Mr. Campbell, 
informing me that an indictment was served against me in 
my absence, and that the trial was fixed for Monday the 11 th 
instant. The distance, and the shortness of the time, could 
not permit me to reach Edinburgh by that day. War is 
declared between England and France, and the formalities 
requisite to be gone through, before I could procure my pass¬ 
port, would at least have consumed three days. I will return 
to Scotland without delay. To shrink from dangers would 
be unbecoming my own character, and your confidence. I 
dare challenge the most minute investigation of my public 
and private conduct. Armed with innocency, I appeal to 
justice; and I disdain to supplicate favours. I have hastened 
to give you an account of my intention, and I am happy that 
a private gentleman, who leaves Paris to-morrow, affords me 
an opportunity for the communication. 

“ Thomas Muir.* 

“ Paris, 13th February, 1793.” 

On the 25th February, 1793, a sentence of outlawry was 
moved for, and obtained by the Crown, against Mr. Muir; 
and in a few days afterwards, 6th March, 1793, his name, 
for that reason, was erased from the roll of the Faculty of 
Advocates;—a circumstance—however, which did not distress 
him, because, if he had even been acquitted on his trial, he 
intended immediately to have retired to the United States of 
America, where, we have no doubt, he would have beefi 
received with open arms. In truth, he would have been an 
ornament to any country. 

* The original of the above Address is in the possession of Allan Fullar- 
ton. Esq. Glasgow. 


17 


In July, 1793, lie landed in Ireland, on his return from 
France—and after remaining in Ireland for a few days, he 
crossed over to Portpatrick, in Scotland, anxious to reach 
Edinburgh to meet his accusers. He had scarcely however been 
an hour in Scotland, ere he was pounced on by the minions of 
the law, and carried straightway to the Jail of Stranraer, 
where he was kept for several days, till a communication was 
made to the Crown Lawyers at Edinburgh, from whence a 
messenger-at-arms was immediately despatched for him, and 
in his custody, as a prisoner, Mr. Muir was taken to Edin¬ 
burgh early in August 1793. 

On the 30tli of that month he was brought to the bar of 
the High Court of Justiciary—and after a lengthened trial of 
eighteen hours, he was found guilty of Sedition, and sen¬ 
tenced to Transportation for fourteen years. 

A trial more important never occurred in this country. 
It created, at the time, uncommon interest. All classes of 
the community were affected by it. In Parliament, it gave 
rise to an interesting and solemn debate. It even attracted 
the attention of foreigners. And though forty years have 
now nearly elapsed since the trial itself occurred; and all the 
chief actors in it are dead and gone, we are persuaded that 
the short account, and exposition of it, which we have now 
resolved to submit to the consideration of the public, cannot 
be read, and especially by the lovers of rational Reform and 
Freedom, at this particular period, without feelings of aston¬ 
ishment, indignation, and regret. 

Any person will at once perceive that Mr. Muir was tried 
and convicted, simply because he was a Reformer. This 
truly was “ the head and front of his offending.” And now 
we think it may be of importance to look for a little at the 
character and constitution of the Court before which he was 
tried. 

We would first remark, though the fact is already well 
known, that an appeal lies against almost every decision pro¬ 
nounced by the Supreme Civil Court in Scotland—whereas 
no appeal lies against any of the decisions pronounced by the 
Supreme Criminal Court;—that is to say, a person can seek 
justice in the House of Lords, if it is to affect his pounds, 
shillings, or pence. But he cannot seek it if it is to affect 
his life, liberty, or repute. We don’t say that this is an 
invidious distinction—neither do we say that the law in this 
respect is good or bad. We merely state the fact, with this 
observation, that it has frequently happened that the most 
grave and deliberate decisions of the Court of Session, even 

B 


18 


pronounced unanimously by the whole Judges (fifteen in 
number) have, on appeal, been overturned or reversed on 
sound and cogent reasons in the House of Lords. 

Now, we ask, might not the same thing have happened in 
a criminal case ? For, if a judge goes wrong in the one case, 
is he not just as likely to go wrong in the other ? Nay, is he 
not more likely to go wrong in the case where he knows his 
opinion (like the Pope’s) cannot be reviewed or altered else¬ 
where,—than in the other, where he knows his opinion will be 
sifted and reviewed by the highest tribunal in the Empire ? 
There are many other considerations which might be stated 
here, all tending to show that, in criminal cases, and espe¬ 
cially in political cases, where new, nice, and delicate points 
of law , sometimes occur, (and it is only to such cases that we 
wish our observations to apply,) there ought to be a right of 
appeal to the House of Lords—or to some other Court of 
review—and we hope the time is not far distant when this 
suggestion will be adopted by the country. 

At the date of Mr. Muir’s trial—for a long time preceding 
it—and down till within the last very few years, the Judges 
of the Court of Justiciary were armed with a fearful extent of 
power in one most important particular, which we think is 
utterly repugnant to the right administration of justice. They 
had the nomination of juries entirely in their own hands . And 
it was exercised in this manner :—Whenever the trial of any 
offender took place, the Clerk of Court (appointed by the 
Court itself) handed to the presiding Judge, a list of the 
names of forty-five Jurymen, who were all cited to attend on 
the occasion. His Lordship then proceeded to pick out, or 
select , from the list, beginning at the top, tail, or middle of 
it, the names of any fifteen jurymen he pleased, , being the num¬ 
ber requisite to sit on the trial. And no objection could be 
stated by the prisoner to the Jurymen thus selected, except 
on the limited and special grounds of personal malice—mis¬ 
nomer-infamy—minority—deafness—dumbness—insanity, 
or relationship to the prosecutor. All other objections, 
however powerful, or of whatsoever nature, that might have 
been urged by the prisoner, were entirely disregarded. These 
were his Jurymen, and from them he could not fly. 

Now there have been such things known, or heard of, in 
this country, as the “packing” of a Jury. The term is quite 
familiar. In the days of the tyrannical Stuarts, it is stated, 
on the authority of Lord Hailes, who was himself one of the 
Judges of Justiciary, that “ the Prime Minister, in order to 
obtain a sentence agreeable to the King, (in certain political 


19 


cases,) used to address the Judges , with promises , and threats , 
to pack the Jury, and then deal with them without scruple 
or ceremony”* 

We don’t say, or even mean to insinuate, that such 
things have happened in this country within the memory 
of man. But we now beg to call the attention of the 
reader to what actually occurred on the trial of Mr. Muir 
in 1793. 

After the Lord Justice Clerk, (who, be it known, was the 
Right Honourable Robert M‘Queen of Braxfield,) had 
u selected” the names of the first two of Mr. Muir’s Jury¬ 
men, Mr. Muir rose and stated, that 66 he had no personal 
knowledge of them—that he believed, they were highly 
respectable, but he nevertheless solemnly protested against 
their sitting on his trial, because they belonged to an Asso¬ 
ciation who had publicly condemned his principles, and who 
had actually offered a reward, to discover any person who 
had circulated any of the political publications—of which 
he was accused of circulating in the indictment ?” But the 


* In 1821, Mr. Kennedy of Dunure, (son-in-law of the great Sir Samuel 
Romilly) to his everlasting honour, introduced a Bill into Parliament to 
put an end to <( the Elements of the Art of Packing Juries,” as Jeremy 
Bentham most fitly called them. This Bill provided that the Jury should, 
thereafter, be chosen by Ballot—and that the prosecutor and the prisoner 
should have right to challenge a certain number of them, without assigning 
any reason. But, strange to say, the late Lord Advocate of Scotland, Sir 
William Rae, took alarm at Mr. Kennedy’s Bill, and actually wrote a cir¬ 
cular letter (April 6th, 1821,) to all the Counties in Scotland, the plain 
English of which was to get the Counties to come forward and smother the 
Bill with opposition.—And the Counties, with the exception of Lanark and 
one or two others, most servilely, and shamefully, obeyed the call.—Some 
of them passed resolutions, in effect, declaring that it was contrary to the 
Articles of the Treaty of Union to improve the Criminal Law of Scotland!! 
While others had the decency to declare that Mr. Kennedy’s Bill proceeded 
** from a restless spirit of innovation,” and they “ most earnestly depre¬ 
cated any rash alteration on so venerable a fabric, of which no stone 
could be displaced without the risk of consequences, some of which perhaps 
human wisdom could not foresee.”—Excellent language for Anti-Reformers! 
—What better could they employ ?—But it was all cant, hypocrisy, and 
humbug. Sir Robert Peel, to his infinite honour, became the efficient 
Reformer of the Scotch Courts in this respect, for he took up the Bill of 
Mr. Kennedy—and carried it successfully through the House of Commons. 
And why ?—Because it was founded on principles of truth and justice— 
congenial to the spirit of the age.—Yet Sir Robert Peel now refuses to 
reform the more glaring absurdities of the rotten Boroughs of England J 
Admirable consistency.—We hope that, as this distinguished Baronet 
changed his mind on the Catholic Question, he will again do so on the 
Reform Question, though he happens to be a pro indiviso proprietor of a 
rotten Borough. 


20 


Court unanimously repelled the objection. And we state it 
as a matter of fact, that the whole of Mr. Muir’s fifteen Jury¬ 
men were members of that Association, who had already vir¬ 
tually condemned him. And it turns out that the Foreman 
of this Jury was one of the most active members of that Asso¬ 
ciation—and one of a Committee who had previously poured 
out their anathemas on his very name ! 

As soon as these Jurymen had been all selected and sworn 
by the Court, Mr. Muir again rose, and solemnly stated, that 
“ he would never cease recalling to their attention the pecu¬ 
liarity of their situation—they had already determined his 
fate—they had already judged his cause—and as they valued 
their reputation, their own internal peace he entreated- 

Here he was “ stopped by the Court , who concurred in opi¬ 
nion, that his conduct was extremely improper in thus taking 
up their time, as the objection had been repelled.” 

From that moment Mr. Muir saw that the scales of justice 
were turned against him—that his doom was fixed, and hence 
throughout the whole subsequent trial, he seems to have 
exerted himself with almost supernatural talent, in order that 
posterity might judge of him, and know how he was treated. 
His defence, so eloquent and convincing, forcibly reminds us 
of the ancient orators of Greece and Rome, nor is it, we 
think, eclipsed by any of the splendid orations of our own 
immortal Erskine, who, like Muir, only shone the more bril¬ 
liantly when his talents were exerted in the cause of liberty. 

Yet this defence, though it penetrated the hearts of the 
whole audience, in a crowded Court, even to the shedding of 
tears, had no effect on any of his Judges. They alone stood 
unmoved by it. This, to be sure, might all be well enough, 
if we, of this generation, could shut our eyes to the extra¬ 
ordinary tone and temper which seems to have been mani¬ 
fested by these Judges at that particular period. 

The Lord Justice-Clerk M‘Queen, when pronouncing the 
sentence of the Court against Mr. Muir, took occasion to say 
that “ the indecent applause which was given the pannel last 
night, convinced him that a spirit of discontent still lurked 
in the minds of the people, and that it would be danger¬ 
ous to allow him to remain in this country. His Lordship 

said THIS CIRCUMSTANCE HAD NO LITTLE WEIGHT WITH 
HIM WHEN CONSIDERING OF THE PUNISHMENT Mr. MuiR 
DESERVED !!” 

We have a few other extraordinary things to relate. On 
the trial of Maurice Margarot—another Reformer—who was 
tried before the same Court soon after Mr. Muir, the follow- 


21 


ing scene occurred, which we confess fairly baffles every thing 
that we have ever seen, heard, or read of, in judicial pro¬ 
cedure.—The Star Chamber is nothing to it. 

Mr. Margarot. 66 Now, my Lord, comes a very delicate 
matter indeed. I mean to call upon my Lord Justice Clerk, 
and I hope that the questions, and the answers, will be given 
in the most solemn manner. I have received a piece of infor¬ 
mation, which I shall lay before the Court, in the course of 
my questions : first, my Lord, Are you upon oath ?” 

Lord Justice Clerk. 66 State your questions, and I will tell 
you, whether I will answer them or not; if they are proper 
questions I will answer them.” 

Q. “ Did you dine at Mr. Rochead’s, at Inverleith, in the 
course of last week ?” 

Lord Justice Clerk. “ Andwhathaveyou to do with that, Sir?” 

Q. C£ Did any conversation take place with regard to my 
trial?” 

Lord Justice Clerk. 61 Go on, Sir !” 

Q. “ Did you use these words ?— 6 What should you think 
of giving him an hundred lashes, together with Botany Bay ?* 
or words to that purpose ?” 

Lord Justice Clerk. “ Go on;—put your questions, if you 
have any more.” 

Q. “ Did any person, did a lady say to you, that the people 
would not allow you to whip him ? and, my Lord— did you 
not say , that the mob would be the better for losing a little blood ? 
—These are the questions, my Lord, that I wish to put to 
you at present, in the presence of the Court: deny them, or 
acknowledge them.” 

Lord Justice Clerk. “ Do you think I should answer ques¬ 
tions of that sort, my Lord Henderland ?” 

Lord Henderland. “ No, my Lord, they do not relate to 
this trial.” 

The rest of the Judges concurred in this opinion—and so 
the questions, very properly, were not answered ! 

But we earnestly entreat our readers to turn up to the list 
of Mr. Muir’s jurymen, and they will discover this astonishing 
fact, that James Rochead, of Inverleith, in whose house the 
Lord Justice Clerk of Scotland was alleged to have mad© use 
of the above horrible language, was one of the Jurymen 
selected by his Lordship, and one who actually sat on the 
trial of Mr. Muir ! ! ! 

The same thing occurred, but in a more direct and tangible 
shape, in the case of Joseph Gerald, another Reformer, who 
was also tried before the same Court, about the same period. 


10th March, When the Court met, Mr. Gerald rose and said, 
1794. “My Lords, I feel myself under the painful neces¬ 
sity of objecting to the Lord Justice Clerk sitting upon that 
bench, upon this plea, that his Lordship has deviated from the 
strict line of his duty, in prejudging that cause in which my 
fortune and my fame, which is more precious to me than life, 
is actually concerned. I beg, therefore, that this (holding 
a paper in his hand) may be made a minute of this Court.” 

“ In order to show that this objection was not made at 
random, Joseph Gerald offered to prove that the Lord Justice 
Clerk had prejudged the cause of every person who had been 
a member of that Assembly calling itself the British Convention ; 
inasmuch as he had asserted, in the house of James Rochead, 
of Inverleith, 6 that the members of the British Convention 
deserved transportation for fourteen years, and even public 
whipping—and that when it was objected, by a person pre¬ 
sent in company, that the people would not patiently endure 
the inflicting of that punishment upon the members of the 
British Convention, the said Lord Justice Clerk replied, that 
the mob would be the better for the spilling of a little blood. 
I pray that this may be made a minute of the Court. I desire 
to have the matters alleged , substantiated by evidence .” 

Lord Lskgrove. “ My Lords,—This objection which comes 
before your Lordships, is a novelty in many respects; and I 
don’t think this pannel, at this bar, is well advised in making 
it: what could be his motive for it I cannot perceive. He 
has the happiness of being tried before one of the ablest 
Judges that ever sat in this Court; but he is to do as he 
thinks fit. I am sure he can obtain no benefit if he gains the 
end he has in view; and therefore I cannot perceive his 
motive, unless it is an inclination, as far as he can, to throw 
an indignity upon this Court.” And after some farther 
remarks, his Lordship concluded by saying, “ that he could 
ascribe the objection to nothing but malevolence and desperation .” 

Mr. Gerald. “ My Lord, I come here not to be the object 
of personal abuse, but to meet the justice of my country.” 

Lord Henderland. “ I desire you will behave as becomes a 
man before this High Court. I will not suffer this Court to 
be insulted.” 

Mr. Gerald. “ My Lord—Far be it from me to insult this 
Court.” 

Lord Henderland. “ Be silent, Sir.” 

Mr. Gerald. “ My Lord-” 

Lord Henderland. “ I desire you will be silent Sir!” 

Lord Swinton. 66 My Lords—An objection of this kind, 


coming from any other man, I should consider as a very high 
insult upon the dignity of this Court; but coming from him 
standing in the peculiar situation in which he now stands at 
the bar, charged with a crime of little less than treason, the 
insolence of his objection is swallowed up in the atrocity of 
his crime. It appears to me that there is not the smallest 
relevancy in this objection.’* 

Lord Dunsinan. 44 I think your Lordships ought to pay 
no attention to it, either in one shape or another.” 

The objection was unanimously disregarded ! 

On the trial of William Skirving, another Reformer, and 
by all accounts, a most amiable man, 

44 The Lord Justice Clerk proceeded to nominate the first 
five of the Jury—and asked the pannel if he had any objec¬ 
tion to them.” 

Mr. Skirving . 44 1 object, in general, to all those who are mem¬ 
bers of the Goldsmiths’ Llall Association. And, in the second 
place, I would object to all those who hold places under Go¬ 
vernment, because this is a prosecution by Government against 
me; and, therefore, I apprehend they cannot with freedom of 
mind judge in a case where they are materially parties.” 

LordEskgrove. 44 This gentleman’s objection is, that his Jury 
ought to consist of the Convention of the Friends of the People 
—that every person wishing to support Government, is inca¬ 
pable of passing upon his Assize. And, by making this 
objection, the pannel is avowing, that it was their purpose to 
overturn the Government.” 

Lord Justice Clerk . 44 Does any of your Lordships think 
otherwise ? I dare say not.” 

Objection repelled. 

We had almost omitted to state, that in Margarot’s trial 
the Lord Justice Clerk, first of all, asked the pannel if he 
had any objection to his Jurymen. 

Mr. Margarot replied, 44 1 have no personal objection; but 
I must beg to know by what law you have the picking of the 
Jury, and that you alone have the picking of them ?” 

Lord Abercrombie. 44 His Lordship is hot picking but 
naming the Jury, according to the established law, and the 
established constitution of the country; and the gentleman 
at the bar has no right to put such a question /” 

The above, then, is a brief outline of the way in which the 
whole of these Reformers—the pannels —were treated by the 
Bench. And we shall now give a few examples of the way 
in which some of the witnesses were treated, when it was found 
they did not answer the purposes of the prosecution. 


24 


Margarot’s “ James Colder sworn. 

Trial, p. 89. “ Lord Henderland. What is your trade ? 

“ A. I have no trade. 

“ Lord Eskgrove. If you have no trade, how do you live ? 

~ “ A. I am neither a placeman nor pensioner. 

“Lord Justice Clerk , (turning himself to the Judges). 
What do you think of that, my Lords ? 

“ Lord Henderland. What do you call yourself? 

“ A. A friend of the people. 

Q. You don’t live by that—you must have some occu¬ 
pation ? 

“ A. I am maintained by my father, Donald Calder, mer¬ 
chant in Cromarty. 

6fi Lord Justice Clerk. Ho! my Lords, he was sent up to 
the British Convention. 

“ Witness. No, my Lords, I was not. 

“ Lord Advocate. I understand he is a student at the Uni¬ 
versity. 

“ A. Yes,—I am.” 

Gerald’s Trial, “ Alexander Aitcheson, sworn. 

p. 151. “ Lord Justice Clerk. You are not come here to 

give dissertations either on the one side or the other. You 
are to answer to facts according to the best of your recollection, 
and, according to the great oath you have taken, answer the 
facts that are asked of you. 

“ A. My Lord, I wish to pay all due respect to your Lord- 
ship and this Court; but I consider myself as in the presence 
not only of your Lordship, but also as in the presence of the 
King of kings and Lord of lords; and, therefore, as bound by 
my oath, to say every thing that I can consistently with truth, 
to exculpate this pannel, who, I am sure, is an innocent man. 

“Mr. Solicitor General. Many things you have now said, will, 
in my opinion, tend to do more hurt than good to the pannel. 
“ Witness. Of that, the gentlemen of the Jury will judge. 

“ Lord Justice Clerk. Mr. Solicitor General, it is needless 
to put any more questions to this man. 

“ Solicitor General. I shall put no more, my Lord. 

“ Witness was ordered to withdraw. 

“ Lord Justice Clerk. Put kirn out then. Put him out!” 
Margarot’s “ Witness, Aitcheson. 

Trial, p. 68. « Q. Did you ever observe any thing of a seditious 
or riotous appearance in the Convention ? 

“ A. Not in the least. 

“ Q. Did you ever hear any thing mentioned, or whispered in 
the Convention, that might tend to overturn the Constitution? 


25 


“A. Never. 

“ Q. Did you ever hear any thing mentioned there against 
placemen and pensioners? 

“A. Often. 

“Mr. Margarot. That, I suppose, is the sedition that is 
meant to be charged.” 

No further questions were put to this witness. 

Page 80. “John Wardlaw. 

“ Q. What is your profession ? 

“ A . A Writer. 

“ Q. Did you see Mr. Margarot sign it?—(*. e. a Minute 
of a Meeting of Delegates for Reform.) 

“ A . I don’t recollect his signing it. I don’t recollect 
whether he wrote it or not. Mr. Margarot is a man of 
courage, and a man of honour, and a man of virtue—and a 
man that would not deny his word—by God. 

“ Lord Justice Clerk . What is that you say ? 

“ A . I said he would not deny his word. 

“ Lord Justice Clerk . But you said something else. 

“ A . 1 said, by God. 

“ Lord Justice Clerk. He is either drunk, or affecting to be 
drunk. My own opinion is, that he is affecting to be drunk : 
and, supposing he is not affecting drunkenness, he ought not 
to get drunk, knowing that he was to be called here as a 
witness. 

“ Lord Henderland. I move that he be committed to prison 
for a month.” 

And he was committed ! 

We hope we do not go too far when we express our belief, 
that no Judge in this country, now-a-days, could venture to 
imitate some of these examples of his predecessors, in these 
political trials, without having his conduct instantly im¬ 
peached;—and we think the present Administration, with 
the Lord Chancellor at its head, would not shield him with 
their countenance or protection. It would be desirable, we 
think, if all these obnoxious scenes could now be expunged 
from the criminal annals of the country. Our comfort, how¬ 
ever, is, that they can never be re-acted again. We are now 
blessed with able, independent, liberal, and virtuous Judges, 
in whom the country (alive to its own dignity,) justly reposes 
the most unbounded confidence. 

We think it right to mention, that the Reformers, to whom 
we have alluded, viz. Skirving, Gerald, and Margarot, were 
tried one after another, and all defended themselves with great 
spirit and ability. The speech of Gerald, in particular, was 


26 


admirable. We regret our limits will not enable us to 
transcribe some eloquent and beautiful passages of it, espe¬ 
cially as it was thus noticed by the Lord Justice Clerk, in his 
charge to the Jury: 

44 Gentlemen, when you see Mr. Gerald taking a very 
active part, (i. e. in the cause of Reform,) and making speeches 
such as you have heard to-day, I look upon him, as a very 
dangerous member of society; for, I dare say, he has eloquence 
enough to persuade the people to rise in arms.”— Mr. Gerald. 
44 Oh, my Lord, my Lord, this is a very improper way of 
addressing a Jury—it is descending to personal abuse. God 
forbid that my eloquence should ever be made use of, for 
such a purpose.”—Lore? Justice Clerk. 44 Mr. Gerald, I don’t 
say that you did so, but that you had abilities to do it.” 

It is almost unnecessary to add, that all these Reformers, 
like their distinguished coadjutor, Mr. Muir, were found 
guilty of sedition, and sentenced to fourteen years’ transpor¬ 
tation. We have made inquiry, and find that not one of 
them now survives. 

We cannot leave this part of the subject without stating, 
and we do it with pride and gratitude, that the Hon. John 
Clerk, now Lord Eldin, and the Hon. Adam Gillies, 
now Lord Gillies, who were then young and rising Counsel 
at the Bar, almost of the same standing with Mr. Muir, ani¬ 
mated by those principles of independence and justice which 
have ever distinguished their long and valuable lives, nobly 
stepped forward and endeavoured to arrest the dreadful 
powers assumed by the Court. In the case of Gerald, Mr. 
Gillies set out 44 directly and strongly maintaining, that other 
views ought to have guided their Lordships’ judgment for¬ 
merly, and that other views ought to guide it now.”* But 
every effort in favour of a Reformer was utterly unavailing.. 
The Judges of the Court of Justiciary absolutely went the 
length of declaring, that the conduct of these Reformers 
“ amounted almost to a species of high treason ,” and that 44 a 
little more” would have made them 44 stand trial for their 
lives!” 

And, indeed, in the case of Mr. Muir, we think it would 
have been humane and merciful if his life had been at once 
taken from him; for who can read the following account of 
the subsequent treatment he met with in this country without 
horror and dismay.-}- 44 Edinburgh, Nov. 15, 1793: About 

* Vide speech of Mr. Gillies, now Lord Gillies, in the Trial of Joseph 
Gerald, p. 31. ^ 1 

f Scots Magazine, vol. lv. p. 617. 


27 


eleven o’clock, forenoon, Mr. Thomas Muir, younger of 
Huntershill, was taken from Edinburgh Tolbooth, and con¬ 
veyed to Newhaven in a coach, where he was sent on board 
the Royal George, Excise yacht, Captain Ogilvie, lying in 
Leith Roads, for London. There were sent along with him, 
John Grant, who was convicted of forgery at Inverness; John 

Stirling, for robbing Nellfield house; - Bearhope, for 

stealing watches; and James M‘Kay, lately condemned to 
death for street robbery, but who afterwards obtained a respite 
during his Majesty’s pleasure. Mr. Palmer was also sent to 
London, in the same vessel, and on their arrival they were put 
on hoard the Hulks at Woolwich.” 

66 London , Dec. 1 , 1793. Mr. Thomas Muir and the 
Rev. T. F. Palmer arrived in the River, from Leith, on board 
a revenue cutter. Orders were sent down for delivering 
them to Duncan Campbell, the contractor for the Hulks at 
Woolwich, the former in the Prudentia, and the latter in the 
Stanislaus. They were in irons among the convicts , and were 
ordered yesterday to assist them , in the common labour on the 
hanks of the River. Mr. Muir is associated with about 300 
convicts , among whom he and Mr. Palmer slept after their 
arrival. Mr. Muir is rather depressed in spirits, but Mr. 
Palmer appears to sustain his misfortune with greater for¬ 
titude.”* 

It affords some consolation, however, to the friends of hu¬ 
manity, to know that the case of Mr. Muir did not escape the 
notice of a few virtuous and patriotic men, at that time in Par¬ 
liament. They, too, struggled for him, but in vain. On the 
10th of March, 1794, our own distinguished countryman, 
the Right Hon. William Adam —now the venerable Lord 
Chief Commissioner of the Jury Court in Scotland—made 
a splendid speech, of three hours’ duration, in the House of 
Commons, in which he reprobated the whole of the proceed¬ 
ings against Mr. Muir. And we have peculiar pleasure in 
stating, that this is not the only occasion on which this amiable 
and excellent Judge appears to have exerted himself in the 
cause of the people. His Lordship at once took the direct 
course of moving an Address to the Crown, on behalf of 
Mr. Muir. 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Fox. 

It was opposed by the Lord Advocate, and by Mr. Pitt. 
And if any one will take the trouble to peruse the debates in 
Parliament at that period, he will find that stronger language 

* Vide Annual Register, for 1793, p. 47. 


28 


was used by the greatest statesmen of the age, (Fox and 
Sheridan, especially,) condemnatory of these political Trials 
in Scotland, than was ever uttered within the walls of Parlia¬ 
ment, even during the days of the immortal Hampden. We 
refer our readers to the Appendix for a short abridgment 
of it. 

On a division the numbers were— 

For the motion of Mr. Adam, . . 32 

Against it, . . . . . . 171 

Majority against the motion, . 139 

April 15,1794. The Earl of Lauderdale, too, after a speech of 
nearly four hours, introduced a similar motion in the House 
of Lords, which was seconded by the late Earl of Stanhope, 
—but it met with a worse result, for it was negatived without a 
division. 

We beg our readers to remember, that all this took place 
under the Administration of Mr. Pitt. “ After he had once 
forsworn the errors of his way, (i. e. his early zeal for Reform,) 
and said to corruption, 6 thou art my brother," and called 
power, or rather place, his god, the sight of a Reformer became 
a spectre to his eyes—he detested it as the wicked do the 
light—as tyrants do the history of their own times, which 
haunts their repose even after the conscience has ceased to 
sting their souls.—We must be pardoned for using this lan¬ 
guage.—We know of no epithet too harsh for him, who was 
profligate enough to thirst for the blood of his former asso¬ 
ciates in reform—of the very men whom his own eloquence, 
and the protection of his high station, had seduced into 
popular courses;—and not content with deserting them, to 
use the powerXvhich he had mounted on their backs, for the 
purpose of their destruction ! When the wars and the taxes, 
which we owe to the lamentable policy of this rash statesman, 
shall be forgotten, and the turmoils of this factious age shall 
live only in historical record;—when those venal crowds shall 
be no more, who now subsist on the spoil of the myriads 
whom he lias undone—the passage of this great orator’s life 
which will excite the most lively emotions, will be that where 
his apostasies are enrolled—where the case of the African 
slave and of the Irish Catholic stand black in the sight; but most 
of all will the heart shudder at his persecutions of the Reform¬ 
ers, and at his attempt to naturalize, in England, a system 
of proscription, which nothing but the trial by Jury, and by 


29 

English Judges , could have prevented from sinking the whole 
land in infamy and blood.”* 

Soon after the division in Parliament, the sentence against 
Mr. Muir was carried into farther execution. He was shipped 
off to Botany Bay. Yes, reader, we grieve to state, that a 
man of his high talents, and refined feelings, was placed in 
chains—beside the most atrocious criminals, the refuse and 
dregs of the human race; and, in such company, he was sent 
to eke out his existence on the desolate shores of the remote 
Southern Ocean! 

And for what?—We will not trust ourselves to say any 
thing more on that point. Read his Defence. 

It is impossible to form any adequate conception of the 
state in which Mr. Muir’s feelings must have been, when he 
left England. The reader is left to fancy them if he can. 
For it does not appear, at least we have not been able to 
discover, that Mr. Muir committed to writing any observation, 
or remonstrance either on the subject of his trial, or the 
treatment to which he was latterly subjected. He seems to 
have submitted to his fate with calm dignity.— 

“ A Roman, with a Roman’s heart, can suffer.”f 

His venerable parents were permitted to visit him before he 
sailed from Leith Roads.—But such a visit! Their hearts 
were 66 wrung and riven”—not in consequence of any moral 
turpitude, or disgrace which he had brought upon them, for 
a worthier and more affectionate son never breathed. But 
surely the bare idea, that he in whom all their earthly hopes cen¬ 
tered was about to be torn from them, and sent to exile, for a 
length of years, was of itself sufficient to fill their cup of afflic¬ 
tion, without the above appalling fact that he was placed in 
chains, and treated worse than the veriest slave, in the land, 
too, where we have been exultingly told, no slave ever trod! 

“ That man should thus encroach on fellow-man, 

Abridge him of his just and native rights, 

Eradicate him,—tear him from his hold 
Upon the endearments of domestic life 


* Edinburgh Review, April, 1810, p. 120. 

It will be observed, that Hardy, Tooke, and other Reformers, were 
also tried in England, in 1793—94; and so anxious were the Ministry to 
get a conviction against them, that the present Earl of Eldon, then Sir 
John Scott, Attorney-General, spoke for upwards of eight hours against p> 
Hardy. Lord Erskine dashed his sophistry to pieces by such a torrent 
of manly eloquence, that the Jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty. 

t Since writing thus far, we have discovered an affecting letter, written 
by Mr. Muir to a friend at Cambridge, which is printed in the Appendix. 


30 


n 


And social, nip his fruitfulness and use 
And doom him for perhaps a heedless word , 

To barrenness,—and 'solitude—and tears, 

Moves indignation—makes the name of power 
As dreadful as the Manichean God— 

Adored through fear—strong only to destroy.” 

The Reformers of England—through their corresponding 
Society in London—transmitted to Mr. Muir, and to Messrs. 
Gerald, Palmer, Margarot, and Skirving, the following ani¬ 
mated 

Address: 

“ We behold in you, our beloved and respected friend and 
fellow-citizen, a martyr to the glorious cause of Equal Re¬ 
presentation, and we cannot permit you to leave this degraded 
country, without expressing the infinite obligations the people 
at large, and we in particular, owe to you, for your very spirited 
exertions in that cause upon every occasion; but upon none 
more conspicuously than during the sitting of the British 
Convention of the People at Edinburgh, and the con¬ 
sequent proceeding (we will not call it trial) at the bar of the 
Court of Justiciary. 

“We know not what most deserves our admiration, the 
splendid talents with which you are so eminently distinguished, 
the exalted virtues by which they have been directed, the 
perseverance and undaunted firmness which you so nobly 
displayed in resisting the wrongs of your insulted and op¬ 
pressed country, or, your present manly and philosophical 
suffering under an arbitrary, and, till of late, unprecedented 
sentence—a sentence, one of the most vindictive and cruel 
that has been pronounced since the days of that most infamous 
and ever-to-be-detested Court of Star Chamber, the enormous 
tyranny of which cost the first Charles his head. 

“To you and to your associates we feel ourselves most 
deeply indebted. For us it is, that you are suffering the sen¬ 
tence of transportation with felons, the vilest outcasts of so¬ 
ciety ! For us it is, that you are doomed to the inhospitable 
shores of New Holland; where, however, we doubt not you 
will experience considerable alleviation by the remembrance 
of that virtuous conduct for which it is imposed on you, 
and by the sincere regard and esteem of your fellow-citizens. 

“ The equal laws of this country have, for ages past, been 
the boast of its inhabitants: but, whither are they now fled? 
We are animated by the same sentiments, are daily repeating 
the same words, and committing the same actions for which 
you are thus infamously sentenced; and we will repeat and 
commit them until we have obtained redress; yet we are un- 


31 


punished ! Either therefore the law is unjust towards you, in 
inflicting punishment on the exertions of virtue and talents, 
or it ought not to deprive us of our share in the glory of the 
martyrdom. 

u We again, therefore, pledge ourselves to you and to our 
country, never to cease demanding our rights from those who 
have usurped them, until, having obtained an Equal Repre¬ 
sentation of the People, we shall be enabled to hail you once 
more with triumph to your native country. We wish you 
health and happiness; and be assured we never, never shall 
forget your name, your virtues, nor your great example. 

44 The London Corresponding Society. 

44 John Lovett, Chairman. 

44 Thomas Hardy, Secretary. 

“ The 14th of April, 1794.” 

' Considering the advanced age of Mr. Muir’s parents, they 
parted with him under the conviction that they could not sur¬ 
vive the term of his sentence, or meet him again in this world. 
Neither they did. But he anxiously endeavoured to soothe 
their feelings, and to elevate their thoughts, by pointing, like 
Anaxagoras, to the heavens. 

This trying scene broke down the constitution of his father. 
He was struck with a shock of palsy, from which he never 
recovered. And his poor mother, so powerful was her affec¬ 
tion for her devoted son, periled her own life, by making 
frequent excursions to sea in an open boat in the winter of 1793, 
in order that she might again catch a glimpse of him, and 
give vent to her agonized feelings. 

During the last of these excursions, but before she could 
approach near enough to recognise him, the vessel in which 
Mr. Muir was, got under weigh. And if the agony of mortals 
could have any effect on the elements of nature, these very 
elements at that time would have stood motionless on account 
of Thomas Muir. 

One of the last requests he made to his parents was, to fur¬ 
nish him with a small pocket Bible; and we mention that 
circumstance, because it will be seen how highly he prized that 
precious relic, and how miraculously it preserved his life under 
the extraordinary vicissitudes that afterwards befell him. 

There were 83 convicts on board the Surprise transport, 
which carried him from England. His fellow-Reformers, 
Palmer, Skirving, and Margarot, were among them. But 
there was another individual of a very different description, 
indeed, in whose society Mr. Muir at one time little thought 


4 


32 


he could sojourn for a single hour. This was a man of the 
name of Henderson, belonging to Glasgow, who had been 
tried there by the Circuit Court of Justiciary, about two years 
before, for the Murder of his wife. And strange to tell, Mr. 
Muir had been his counsel. He pled successfully for him, as 
Henderson’s Jury, instead of a verdict of Murder, brought in 
a verdict of Culpable Homicide, which saved the culprit’s 
neck, and now he was going to expiate his crime under a like 
sentence of transportation for fourteen years !—Oh tempora ! 
O mores ! What a commentary on the different degrees of 
punishment!—What a lesson to philanthropists on the classi¬ 
fication of prisoners! 

After a tedious voyage, the Surprise arrived at Sydney on 
the 25th Sept. 1794. It was alleged that symptoms of mutiny 
had broken out during the voyage, on the part of some of the 
convicts; but nothing of the kind was imputed to Mr. Muir, 
or to Palmer, Skirving, or Margarot, who conducted them¬ 
selves with the utmost propriety. 

When they reached Sydney, they were placed, like the 
other convicts, under the surveillance, or at the disposal of 
the Authorities in that Colony. But we have much pleasure 
in stating, that every indulgence appears to have been shown 
to Mr. Muir, compatible with the strict rules of the place. 
In fact, the treatment Mr. Muir received at Sydney, was a 
thousand times milder than the treatment he had received in 
England.—He was no longer yoked in chains, and set to hard 
labour, like the brutes that perish.—He was no longer despised 
and upbraided for the political principles he professed. His 
inoffensive and gentlemanly deportment commanded the 
respect, even of hardened criminals and wild savages, which 
is more than can be said of some of his civilized and enlight¬ 
ened countrymen, then nearer home. 

On the 13th Dec. 1794,—about three months after his 
arrival,—Mr. Muir thus writes to one of his friends—Mr. 
Moffat, Solicitor, in London: 

“ I am pleased with my situation, as much as a man can be, 
separated from all he loved and respected. Palmer, Skirving, 
and myself, live in the utmost harmony. From our society 
Maurice Margarot is expelled. Of our treatment here, I 
cannot speak too highly. Gratitude will for ever bind me to 
the officers, civil and military. I have been constantly occu¬ 
pied in preparing the evidence and the defence of Palmer and 
Skirving. I have a neat little house here, and another two 
miles distant, at a farm across the water, which I purchased. 
When any money is transmitted, cause a considerable part 


S3 


of it to be laid out at the Cape, or at Rio, in rum, tobacco, 
and sugar, which are invaluable, and the only medium of 
exchange.” &c. &c. 

At the date of Mr. Muir’s sentence, the colony of New 
South Wales (now of such vast consequence) was only in its 
infancy, and hardly known, except to a few intrepid naviga¬ 
tors. They first shipment of convicts to it, from this country, 
was made in the year 1785. And when Mr. Muir reached it, 
nine years afterwards, there were scarcely 1500 individuals in 
it altogether. He laboured, with his own hands, to improve 
and cultivate the land he had purchased, and which, till 
then, was in a state of native wildness; and, in remembrance 
of his patrimonial title and estate in Scotland, he called it 
Huntershill, by which name we hope it is still known. 

We select the following letter from the then Governor 
of the Colony—the late John Hunter, Esq.—to one of his 
friends in Leith, as it is highly creditable to all the parties 
concerned: 

“ N. S. Wales, 16th Oct. 1795. 

" The four gentlemen, whom the activity of the Magis¬ 
trates of Edinburgh provided for our Colony, I have seen and 
conversed with separately, since my arrival here. They seem 
all of them gifted in the powers of conversation. Muir was the 
first I saw. I thought him a sensible young man, of a very 
retired turn, which, certainly, his situation in this country 
will give him an opportunity of indulging. He said nothing 
on the severity of his fate, but seemed to bear his circumstances 
with a proper degree of fortitude and resignation. Skirving 
was the next I saw; he appeared to me to be a sensible, well- 
informed man—not young, perhaps 50. He is fond of farm¬ 
ing, and has purchased a piece of ground, and makes good 
use of it, which will, by and by, turn to his advantage. 
Palmer paid me the next visit: he is said to be a turbulent, 
restless kind of man. It may be so—but I must do him the 
justice to say, that I have seen nothing of that disposition in 
him, since my arrival. Margarot seems to be a lively, face¬ 
tious, talkative man—complained heavily of the injustice of 
his sentence, in which, however, he found I could not agree 
with him. I chose to appoint a time for seeing each separ¬ 
ately—and, on the whole, I have to say, that their general con¬ 
duct is quiet,—decent,—and orderly. If it continues so, they 
will not find me disposed to be harsh or distressing to them.”* 

Poor Gerald—in the last stage of a consumption—only 

* Vide Edinburgh Advertiser, 1796. 

c 


34 


reached the colony three weaks after the above letter was 
written. He scarcely survived three months; for we find he 
died on the 16th March, 1796: and Skirving died three days 
afterwards. 

From all the information we have obtained—and from the 
best attention we have been able to give this subject, we are 
satisfied that Mr. Muir entertained no other idea than that 
he would be obliged to implement the whole term of his sen¬ 
tence at Sydney, unless death itself would cut it short. He 
was, therefore, becoming gradually reconciled to his situa¬ 
tion, dreary and degrading though it must have been, and 
he employed every moment of his time to the best advan¬ 
tage.—He wrote Commentaries on the Trial of Palmer, 
Skirving, &c.;—and he began to write a Treatise on the 
66 Libel Law of Scotland,”—a task for which he was well 
qualified—but we regret that none of these productions 
appear to have found their way to this country, and it is 
impossible for us to tell, whether any of them are now in 
existence, anxious though we have been to ascertain the fact. 
We know, however, positively, that his conduct at Sydney was 
still marked by the distinguishing features of Christian faith 
and charity, which led him devoutly to desire the welfare and 
happiness of the whole human race. He acted on these 
principles to the utmost extent of his now narrow means. 
He took pleasure in improving the mental and corporeal con¬ 
dition of the wretched and less favoured criminals who sur¬ 
rounded him—one proof of which, is the fact, that whereas 
at that period, there was scarcely a Bible in the Colony, and 
religious instruction had there very few friends, he used to 
write, and sometimes to print, with his own hand, some of 
the most instructive and sublime portions of his own favourite 
Bible—and to distribute them among such individuals as ho 
thought would really be benefited by them. This he did, 
from the most exalted motives, devoid altogether of that vain 
show of ostentation, and scandalous hypocrisy, which is too 
often practised in this country, and makes religion the laugh¬ 
ing-stock of its enemies. 

We come now to an interesting part of Mr. Muir’s history: 

His trial in Scotland was reprinted and published in 
the United States of America, where he was likewise re¬ 
garded as a martyr in the cause of Freedom. The immortal 
Washington became interested in his behalf. And some 
generous men in that hemisphere, touched with sympathy 
for his sufferings, (for they knew how he had br^en treated in 
England,) formed the bold project of rescuing him from cap- 


35 


tivity at all hazards. Unknown to Mr. Muir, and at their 
own expense, an American ship, called the Otter, commanded 
by Captain Dawes, was fitted out for the above purpose at New 
York, and despatched for Sydney, towards the middle of the 
year 1795. She anchored in the Cove at Sydney, on the 
25th January, 1796. Captain Dawes, and a few of his crew, 
who were now aware of the secret, landed almost at the very 
spot where Mr. Muir was. They did so under the pretence 
that they were proceeding on a voyage to China, and were in 
want of fuel and fresh water. No suspicion was excited on 
the part of the authorities. After reconnoitering, with breath¬ 
less anxiety, for a few days, Captain Dawes discovered Mr. 
Muir, and had a short conversation with him. It must have 
been interesting and gratifying in the extreme to both par¬ 
ties. Not a moment was now to be lost. Mr. Muir readily 
embraced his generous benefactor—and on the morning of the 
11th February, 1796, he was safely taken on board the Otter— 
and that vessel instantly set sail and departed from Sydney. 

Mr. Muir took nothing with him from thence, for indeed 
he had almost nothing to take except a few articles of dress, 
and his Bible. It is doubtful whether he had an opportunity 
of conversing with his friends, Palmer and Skirving, &c.—or 
of making them acquainted with the unexpected means, which 
had now offered for his escape, so as they also might have 
gone with him. It is also doubtful whether he made any 
disposal of the property he had there purchased. 

In the month of March following, we find that Margarot 
thus writes to his friend Mr. Thomas Hardy, of London :* 
66 Mr. Muir has found means to escape hence on board an 
American vessel, which put in here under pretence of want¬ 
ing wood and water. She is named the Otter, Captain 
Dawes, from what port in America I know not. It is 
reported she came in here for as many of us as chose to go.” 

It is here pleasant to add that Mr. Muir left a letter for 
the Governor at Sydney, expressing his grateful thanks for the 
kindness he had shown to him—and intimating that he was 
now on his way to the United States of America.f 

Preparations were there making for receiving him as an 
adopted Son and Citizen. And if Fate had permitted, we have 
little doubt that Mr. Muir would have become one of the most 
distinguished ornaments at the American bar. The very 
sufferings he had endured in the cause of freedom, would 

* Vide Edinburgh Advertiser, of 1799, p. 109. 

t Vide Paterson’s History of New South Wales, p. 230. 


36 


have gained him friends in that free country, independent 
altogether of his matchless talents. 

But he now became the child of misfortune. After 
being at sea about four months, the Otter was shipwrecked. 
She struck a chain of sunken rocks near Nootka Sound, on 
the west coast of North America—and went to pieces. Every 
soul on board perished except Mr. Muir and two sailors! 
They alone reached the shore, scarcely in life; and after 
wandering about for some days in a state of great bodily and 
mental distress, they were captured by a tribe of Indians, at 
whose hands they looked for nothing but cruelty and death. 
Mr. Muir was soon separated from his unfortunate com¬ 
panions, and never knew whether they survived, or what 
became of them. Contrary to his own forebodings, the 
Indians treated him with singular kindness. He must, we 
imagine, have secured their regard, more by his personal 
appearance and manners than any thing else, since he had 
no presents to offer them, all that remained in his pos¬ 
session being the clothes on his body—a few dollars—and his 
pocket Bible, which last he was in use to carry about with 
him on all occasions. He prudently complied with the man¬ 
ners of the Indians, by daubing his person with paints and 
other embellishments, in which they delighted. And he 
partook contentedly of the fare which they offered him, con¬ 
sisting generally of the raw flesh and oil, &c. of the wild 
animals of that region. 

After living with these Indians for about three weeks, he 
contrived to effect his escape from them. He had now no 
human being to direct his course. The stars of heaven were 
his only guides. And in this most abject and forlorn condi¬ 
tion he travelled almost the whole of the western coast of 
North America, a distance of upwards of 4000 miles, without 
meeting with any interruption. When he laid himself down 
to repose, by night or by day, in the open air, or under the 
shade of some convenient place, he always recommended his 
soul to the merciful protection of his Maker. And when he 
was enabled to appease the cravings of hunger—or to quench 
his thirst, as to which he often endured great distress, 
he did not forget the prayer that was due from him as a 
Christian. 

He at last reached the city of Panama, the first civilized 
place he had seen since he left Sydney. It was then under 
the jurisdiction of the Old Spaniards, who were extremely 
jealous of the appearance of any stranger in their dominions. 
Mr. Muir fortunately had acquired some knowledge of the 


37 


Spanish language, and he found his way to the presence of 
the Governor, who was struck with his dejected and miserable 
appearance, for by this time Mr. Muir had scarcely a stitch 
of clothes on his body, and his feet, as may well be supposed, 
were sorely cut up. Influenced by the principles of probity 
and honour, which he ever regarded, Mr. Muir at once ven¬ 
tured to relate to the Governor a history of his misfortunes, 
determined to abide by the consequences, whether good or 
bad. He had the satisfaction to find that the Governor 
listened to him with attention. And the result was, that an 
order was instantly issued for supplying Mr. Muir with nour¬ 
ishment and raiment. This hospitable conduct greatly com¬ 
forted him, especially as the Governor gave further orders 
that after resting in Panama for a few days he should be 
escorted on his journey across the Isthmus of Darien, by 
guides who were to be sent purposely with him. 

After crossing that singular tract of country Mr. Muir 
directed his course to Vera Cruz, the grand sea-port of 
Mexico, in the hope that he would find a vessel wherein 
he might be carried to some port in the United States. On 
reaching Vera Cruz, (a journey of upwards of one thousand 
miles, and still performed on foot,) Mr. Muir also waited on 
the Governor of that place, and made his situation known to 
him. He even endeavoured to explain to the Governor the 
reason why he had been transported from England. We 
doubt whether this was prudent, and can only defend it on 
the ground that if Mr. Muir had not given this true and 
rational account of himself, he might have been seized as a 
spy, and instantly strangled or shot. A true tale of misery 
seldom misses the heart. And, accordingly, the Governor of 
Vera Cruz, no vessel being there for America, generously 
undertook to provide him with a passage in the first vessel 
that sailed for the Havannah. Mr. Muir was now afflicted 
with a severe attack of yellow fever, which soon levels the 
stoutest constitution in that unhealthy quarter, but his life 
was still spared to him for a little. And, though he was a 
stranger and pennyless, every considerate and humane atten¬ 
tion was paid to him by the Spaniards. On his recovery he 
was taken on board one of their vessels for the Havannah, 
where he was soon safely landed. But it seems the Governor 
of Vera Cruz had transmitted a despatch to the Governor at 
the Havannah, stating, that though he had shown every 
civility to Mr. Muir, he considered that a man of his princi¬ 
ples would be dangerous in the Spanish dominions, and there¬ 
fore recommended that Mr. Muir should be sent home by the 


38 


earliest opportunity to the mother country, in order that the 
King of Spain might determine what should be done with 
him. On this hint the Governor at the Havannah now acted. 
Mr. Muir was transmitted to a prison, or castle, called La 
Principe, on the north side of the Island of Cuba. He was 
obliged to sleep in a damp and filthy bed, which brought 
upon, him acute rheumatic pains, and a loathsome disease, at 
which t^he heart sickens. Some humane Spaniard sent him 
a change of clean linen—the greatest luxury he had enjoyed 
for a long time. And though his confinement was not rigor¬ 
ous, he was greatly vexed to find that there was no American 
Consul, or Agent, at that time at the Havannah, to whom he 
could have applied for relief—his ardent wish still being to 
reach the United States, if possible. 

Having thus been detained at La Principe for about four 
weeks, he was informed that he would now be transmitted to 
Spain, in one of two Spanish frigates then receiving a rich 
cargo of specie for the Government at home. During the 
voyage, he wrought, and was treated like one of the com¬ 
mon sailors. But now we come to his last sad disaster. 

The Spaniards were congratulating themselves on the 
approaching termination of a swift and prosperous voyage, 
for they had now nearly reached the harbour of Cadiz, little 
thinking that a British squadron, under the command of Sir 
John Jervis, afterwards created Earl St. Vincent, was there 
snugly lying ready to intercept them. On the morning 
of the 26th April, 1797, two frigates, belonging to that 
squadron, viz. the Emerald and Irresistible, got their eye 
upon the Spaniards, and instantly gave chase. In a few 
hours they approached each other within pistol-shot, and 
anxiously prepared for action. No man can tell in what state 
the feelings of Thomas Muir were at that awful period. To 
fight against his own country under other circumstances 
would have been rank treason, and we would without hesi¬ 
tation have placed his name in the blackest catalogue of 
traitors. But we are fortunately relieved from all anxiety on 
this delicate and painful point, by the consideration that Mr. 
Muir, de facto , did not take up arms against his own country 
in the sense in which such an act could alone be held crimi¬ 
nal. He was compelled, from the very nature of his situa¬ 
tion, and from dire necessity, to act in his own defence in the 
manner he appears to have done. And what man, under 
these most especial circumstances, would hesitate for one 
moment to defend his liberty and his life? 

The action was fierce and bloody. It lasted for two hours 


39 


—and towards the close of it, Mr. Muir was struck with a 
cannon ball, and lay prostrate with the dead. The Spaniards 
were vanquished. The following is an interesting account 
of the action, taken from the letter of a British officer to his 
friends in Scotland, and published at the time in the news¬ 
papers : 

“ His Majesty’s Ship Irresistible, 

At Anchor, off Cadiz, 28th April, 1797. 

“ On the 26th inst. lying off here, saw two strange ships 
standing for the harbour,—made sail after them with the 
Emerald frigate in company; and, after a chase of eight hours 
they got an anchor in one of their own ports,—in Canille 
Bay. We brought them to action at two in the afternoon. 
We anchored abreast of them—one mile from the shore, and 
continued a glorious action till four, when the Spanish colours 
were struck on board, and on shore, and under their own 
towns and harbours. Our opponents were two of the finest 
frigates in the Spanish service, and two of the richest ships 
taken during this war. A Viceroy and his suite, and a num¬ 
ber of general officers, were on board of one of them. I am 
sorry to say that after they struck, the finest frigate ran on 
shore. We, however, got her off at 12 at night, but from the 
shot she received she sunk at 3 in the morning, with all her 
riches, which was a sore sight to me, especially as I had been 
on board her. We arrived here with our other prize, and 
are landing our prisoners. Among the sufferers on the Spanish 
side is Mr. Thomas Muir , who made so wonderful an escape 
from Botany Bay to the Havannah. He was one of five killed 
on hoard the Nymph , by the last shot fired by us. The officer 
at whose side he fell , is now at my hand , and says he behaved 
with courage to the last.”* 

But see what follows:—When the action was over some of 
the officers and crew of the Irresistible boarded the frigate in 
which Mr. Muir was, to take possession of her as their prize. 
On looking at the dead and dying, one of our officers was 
struck at the unusual position in which one of them lay. His 
hands were clasped in an attitude of prayer, with a small book 
enclosed in them. His face presented a horrid spectacle, as 
one of his eyes was literally knocked out, and carried away, 
with the bone and lower part of the cheek, and the blood 
about him was deep. Some of the sailors believing him to be 

* Vide Edinburgh Advertiser, June, 1797, p. 349- 


40 


dead, were now in the act of lifting him up to throw him 
overboard, when he uttered a deep sigh, and the book fell 
from his hands. The officer to whom we have alluded 
snatched it up, and on glancing at the first page of it, he 
found it was the Bible, with the name of Thomas Muir 
written upon it. He was struck with astonishment. Thomas 
Muir was his early schoolfellow and companion ! He had 
heard of some part of his subsequent history. But to find 
him now in this deplorable situation was almost incredible 
and heart-rending. 

Without breathing his name, for that might have injured 
or betrayed his unhappy friend and countryman, who might 
yet perchance survive, the officer took out his handkerchief 
and wiped the gore from the mangled face of Mr. Muir. 
With another handkerchief he tied up his head, and after 
performing these kind and Christian offices, he enjoined the 
sailors to carry him gently on board a small skiff which was 
then lying at the side of the frigate to receive such of the 
Spaniards as had been wounded in the action, regarding 
whom an order had previously been issued by the British 
Commander, to send them ashore—or land them on their 
own territories, scarcely a mile distant. 

After making this extraordinary and providential escape, 
Mr. Muir was carried to the Hospital at Cadiz as a Spanish 
sailor mortally wounded. In about two months—suffering 
all the while extreme agony, he was able to speak a little to 
those around him. Through some means or other, his dis¬ 
tressing situation was communicated to the French Directory 
at Paris—and so much did they feel interested about Mr. 
Muir, (who, it will be recollected, was formerly in Paris,) 
that they sent a special messenger to Cadiz with instructions 
to see that every proper respect and attention was paid to 
him. The French Directory also ordered their agent at 
Cadiz to defray the whole expenses that might be incurred 
by Mr. Muir, and to supply him with any money he 
required. 

Some of our readers we are afraid will now be greatly 
startled and displeased to learn that Mr. Muir now held 
direct and personal communication with Thomas Paine, 
whose works it is said created so much mischief. But we 
entreat them to observe that Mr. Muir by no means approved 
of the whole of Mr. Paine’s works. Most certainly he never 
approved of his religious works. And we may as soon con¬ 
demn the wise and virtuous men of former times for corre¬ 
sponding with Bolingbroke or Hume, as condemn Mr. Muir 


41 


for corresponding with Paine. Moreover, Mr. Paine, if we 
mistake not, was at that time a distinguished member of the 
French National Convention, and might have been service¬ 
able to Mr. Muir in many ways. At any rate, we have pnly 
been able to discover one single letter between them, and 
we hope we will be excused for republishing it in this 
place when we explain that it simply describes the situation 
of Mr. Muir, and the state of his feelings, at the time it was 
written. 

“ Cadiz, Aug. 14, 1797. 

“ Dear Friend,—S ince the memorable evening on which 

I took leave of you at-, my melancholy and agitated 

life has been a continued series of extraordinary events. I 
hope to meet you again in a few months. 

“ Contrary to my expectation, I am at last nearly cured of 
my numerous wounds. The Directory have shown me great 
kindness. Their solicitude for an unfortunate being who has 
been so cruelly oppressed, is a balm of consolation which 
revives my drooping spirits. The Spaniards detain me as a 
prisoner because I am a Scotchman. But I have no doubt 
that the intervention of the Directory of the Great Republic 
will obtain my liberty. Remember me most affectionately to 
all my friends, who are the friends of liberty and of mankind. 
I remain, dear Sir, yours ever, 

“ Thos. Muir.”* 

In September following, while he was still at Cadiz, Mr. 
Muir had the honour to receive a communication, of rare 
example, either in ancient or modern times, and of which we 
think the greatest statesman, or warrior, that ever lived, might 
justly be proud. This was no other than a communication 
from the Government of France—not only offering to confer 
upon him the privileges of a free citizen, but urgently and 
generously inviting him to spend the remainder of his days in 
the bosom of the French nation. To an oppressed and per¬ 
secuted individual—driven from his own country—and only 
known for his exertions and sufferings in the cause of truth, 
—we will say of liberty ; such an invitation, coming as it did 
from one of the first Nations of Europe, was gratifying in the 
highest degree to Mr. Muir, and it is almost unnecessary to 
add that he accepted it as the greatest compliment and reward 
which could be paid to him in this world. 


* Vide Edinburgh Advertiser, 1797. 



42 


The French Directory instantly followed up their invitation, 
by making a formal demand on the Government of Spain to 
restore Mr. Muir to his freedom, and to afford him every 
facility on his journey to France, which they readily did. On 
the 16th of September, 1797, he became once more a free 
man,—the sentence of the High Court of Justiciary always 
excepted. It never was recalled, but he was now beyond its 
reach, and heartily despised it. 

He arrived at Bourdeaux, the first town of consequence on 
his entrance into France, early in December. The municipal 
authorities, as well as the whole body of inhabitants, received 
him with every demonstration of honour and kindness. They 
invited him to a public dinner, at which the Mayor of Bour¬ 
deaux presided, on the 4th of December, 1797. His health 
was drank with acclamation by a company of upwards of 500 
individuals, as the “ Brave Scottish Advocate of Liberty— 
and now the adopted Citizen of France.” And when he rose 
to return thanks—for he could speak French fluently, he 
fainted in the arms of the American Consul, who did him 
the honour to sit at his left hand—a circumstance which told 
the state of his feelings, and spoke more powerfully in his 
behalf than the most animated and brilliant harangue he 
could have made. 

He reached Paris by slow and easy stages, on the 4th of 
February, 1798; and on the 6th of that month he thus wrote 
to the French Directory: 

cs Citizen Directors, —I arrived two days ago at Paris, in 
a very weak and sickly state. 

“ Permit me to express to you the entire devotion and gra¬ 
titude of my heart. 

“ To you I owe my liberty. To you I also owe my life. 
But there are other considerations of infinitely superior im¬ 
portance, and which ought to make a forcible impression on 
my mind. 

“ Your energetic conduct has saved the liberty, not 
only of France, but also of my country, and of every other 
nation in the world, at present groaning under oppres¬ 
sion. 

“ It is unnecessary for me to make protestations of my love 
and veneration for the Republic. To my last breath I will 
remain- faithful to my adopted country. 

“ I shall esteem, Citizen Directors, the day on which I shall 
have the honour to be admitted to your presence, the most pre¬ 
cious of my life; and if I have passed through dangers and 


4<3 


misfortunes, that moment will for ever efface their remem¬ 
brance, and amply compensate them. 

“ I have the honour to be, 

“ Citizen Directors, 

“ With the most profound respect, 

“ Your grateful and devoted servant, 
“ Thomas Muir.”* 

A deputation from the French Government immediately 
waited on Mr. Muir, to congratulate him on his arrival in 
Paris. His company was now courted by the highest circles 
in France; and indeed he acquired the sympathy and esteem 
of all classes in that great community. Nothing was wanting 
on their part to make him happy—and of this, the grateful 
homage of his heart fully showed that he was deeply sensible. 
But his constitution was fast sinking. The wounds he had 
received were found to be incurable—and shortly afterwards, 
viz. on 27th of September 1798, he expired at Chantilly, near 
Paris, and was interred there, by the Public Authorities, with 
every possible respect. 

His venerable parents, who had heard of his escape from 
Sydney, and subsequent history, were, as may well be imagined, 
greatly agitated by fresh hopes and fears on his account.— 
Many an anxious thought they must have had about him.—They 
received several letters from him, all breathing the most dutiful 
and affectionate regard. On his deathbed he carefully sealed 
up the Bible which they had given him on his departure from 
Scotland, and which had been so miraculously preserved by 
him, through all the difficulties and dangers he had encoun¬ 
tered, leaving an injunction that it should be forwarded to his 
parents by the first opportunity; and it was so forwarded, and 
received by them with mingled feelings of satisfaction and 
grief. They only survived him about two years. 

We believe the only direct relations of Mr. Muir now 
living, are his niece, the amiable lady of the Rev. Laurence 
Lockhart, minister of Inchinnan, and his highly respectable 
nephews, David Blair, Esq, and Captain Thomas Blair, of the 
H. E. I. C. service, who we understand both imbibe the noble 
sentiments of their uncle. 


* Vide Edinburgh Advertiser, 1798. 


44 


Reader !—You thus see, that at the early age of 33, an 
amiable and accomplished man was cut off, who was rising to 
eminence in his profession, and might have become one of the 
ornaments of his country. 

Peruse his Trial, we beseech you, and you will find that he 
was punished, aye, most cruelly punished, because he pre¬ 
sumed to advocate those liberal sentiments which are now 
uttered throughout these kingdoms, and which are engrafted 
on the hearts of every good and loyal subject. 

His defence, powerful and eloquent as it is, and worthy of 
all praise, did not satisfy the consciences of his Judges. We 
hope it will satisfy yours. 

But whether it does so or not, we think you will admit, that 
his moral character stands out to view in the fairest and most 
enviable form. Even the most rancorous of his political ene¬ 
mies have not presumed to asperse it. 

We are sensible that we have not been able to do any thing 
like justice to his merits ; and indeed, the consciousness of our 
own utter insignificance and inability, should perhaps have 
deterred us from venturing upon such a task at all. But we 
beg leave to state (with all humility), that we have been 
prompted to undertake it from a pure loveofjustice.—We have 
nothing to hope, or fear from it. Stop ! we must qualify this 
expression—and should say, that since we have meddled with 
a subject somewhat of a political nature, we shall possibly 
be landed c< in a sea of troubles.” We were not born at 
the date of these transactions.—We are not acquainted with 
a single relative of Mr. Muir’s—all our information has been 
derived from what we consider correct and authentic sources. 
At the same time, we may be mistaken in regard to one or 
two minor particulars.—We know we have disclosed, both 
here and in the Appendix, a few striking and melan¬ 
choly truths, which must be disagreeable in certain quar¬ 
ters, and especially to the stomachs of a few Old Tories 
—“ the life and fortune men” of former times, whose ranks 
have greatly thinned of late. But, independent of them, 
we are much afraid that there is still too much bigotry, in¬ 
tolerance, and prejudice in the land, to make us Ifeel alto¬ 
gether easy. 1 et, nevertheless, though young and humble, 
we will yield to no man for independent "political principles; 
and if we are at all encouraged in this undertaking, we shall 
pet haps be tempted to try our hand soon again on a few other 
Political Trials , equally extraordinary, and interesting. De- 


45 


pend upon it we will not mince matters, or flinch from our 
duty, in giving them a thorough exposition. 

At present, our object is to do all that in us lies, to rescue 
the memory of a good man from oblivion. 

In the case of the ever^to-be-remembered Algernon Sydney , 
we find, that the tyrannical sentence pronounced against 
him, in the reign of Charles II. was afterwards Reversed , 
by a special Act of Parliament, because, as the preamble of 
the Act states, he was convicted “ by means of an unlaw¬ 
ful RETURN OF JURORS, AND BY DENIAL OF HIS LAWFUL 
CHALLENGES.” 

Is it, then, too much for us to expect, that in this enlight¬ 
ened age, the sentence against Thomas Muir will speedily be 
Reversed , on precisely similar grounds ? 

He made, you will find, a solemn and affecting Appeal to 
Posterity; and the time, we hope, has now arrived, when that 
Appeal may safely be heard. 

We see that Monuments have been erected in tc Modern 
Athens,” to commemorate the names of a Dundas and a 
Melville, because, we presume, they were the greatest 
placemen and pensioners that this country could boast of. 
But strange to say, no monument has yet been erected in 
Scotland, to commemorate the name of one single Reformer, 
or rather one single Advocate of Civil Liberty ! 

Shall this glaring omission,—this national reproach,— 
remain in our country much longer ? The victory of the Re¬ 
formers is at hand. The great truths of civil and religious 
liberty are everywhere triumphant. And shall Thomas Muir, 
the firm and undaunted Patriot, the conscientious Martyr, to 
principles now freely borne abroad, in the Senate, in the 
Court, and in the Forum —shall he, we ask, be forgotten 
by his countrymen, to whom he has left so touching, so noble 
an example ? No! We feel that the period approaches when 
Justice will indeed be done to this eminent high-minded 
man, and his band of compatriots; and we confidently anticipate 
that we shall soon see this his native city adorned with a Monu¬ 
ment to his memory. But if these, our fondest hopes, shall 
not be realized—if this our humble but earnest appeal in his 
behalf, shall only be made in vain—if no kindly heart shall 
respond to our call—if men shijll merely cry Reform! and 
Liberty ! with their mouths, while their hearts are cold—nar¬ 
row—and contracted; or utterly insensible to the loftier springs 
of action:—if they of this generation shall basely forget the 
man who fought the first and bravest battle for them, we shall 
indeed be greatly grieved—but, thank God, we shall not be 


46 


dismayed. We look to higher prospects. Yes, we have the 
great satisfaction to think, that whatever the men of this world 
may say or do, a day is fast approaching, when Thomas Muir 
will again meet with his friends and his foes—with his Judges 
and his Jury—face to face—at a Bar where the hearts of all 
men shall be laid open—where Tyranny shall be deprived of its 
iron rod—and where white robed Justice shall sit Omnipo¬ 
tent, to avenge the wrongs of the oppressed, and to bind 
up the wounds of the broken-hearted ! 


APPENDIX. 


No. I. 

THE TRIAL 

OF 

THOMAS MUIR, ESQ. ADVOCATE, 

YOUNGER OF HUNTERSHILL. 

The High Court of Justiciary met at Edinburgh, on Friday, 
the 30th August, 1793. 

Judges present, 

The Lord Justice Clerk, M‘Queen. 

Lords Henderland, I Lords Swinton, 

Dunsinnan, I Abercromby. 

Mr. Muir appeared at the Bar, and the Clerk of Court was ordered 
to read the following Indictment against him: 

George theTHiRD,&c. Whereas it is humbly meant and complained 
to us by our right trusty Robert Dundas, Esq. of Arniston, our 
Advocate for our interest, upon Thomas Muir, younger of Hunters- 
hill, That, by the laws of this and every other well governed realm, 
the wickedly and feloniously exciting, by means of Seditious speeches 
and harangues, a spirit of disloyalty and disaffection to the King and 
the established Government, more especially, when such speeches 
and harangues are addressed to meetings or convocations of persons 
brought together by no lawful authority, and uttered by one who is 
the chief instrument of calling together such meetings : As also, the 
wickedly and feloniously advising and exhorting persons to purchase 
and peruse seditious and wicked publications and writings, calculated 
to produce a spirit of disloyalty and disaffection to the King and 
Government: As also, the wickedly and feloniously distributing, or 
circulating any seditious writing or publication, of the tendency afore¬ 
said, or the causing distribute or circulate any such seditious writing 
or publication : As also the wickedly and feloniously producing 
and reading aloud in a public meeting or convocation of persons, a 
seditious and inflammatory writing, tending to produce in the minds 
of the people a spirit of insurrection and of opposition to the estab¬ 
lished Government: And the publicly approving of, and recommend¬ 
ing in said meeting, such seditious and inflammatory writing, are 
all and each, or one or other of them, crimes of an heinous nature, 
dangerous to the public peace, and severely punishable : Yet true it 
is, and of verity, That the said Thomas Muir is guilty actor, or art 
and part, of all and each, or one or other of the said crimes aggravated 




48 


as aforesaid: In so far as, on the third day of November 1792, or 
one or other of the days of that month, or of the month of October 
immediately preceding, or of December immediately following, the 
said Thomas Muir having been present at a meeting, in the town of 
Kirkintilloch, parish of Kirkintilloch, and county of Dunbarton, de¬ 
nominated “ A Society for Reform,” or bearing some such name ; and 
also having, some time during the course of the said month of Novem¬ 
ber aforesaid, been present at another meeting at Milltoun, parish of 
Campsie, and county of Stirling, which meeting was also denominated, 
“ A Society for Reform,” or bore some such name, and both of which 
societies above-mentioned, the said Thomas Muir was the chief means 
of instituting and forming; he did, at times and places foresaid, with a 
wicked and seditious intention, address and harangue the said meetings; 
in which speeches and harangues, the said Thomas Muir did seditiously 
endeavour to represent the Government of this country as oppressive 
and tyrannical, and the Legislative Body of the State as venal and 
corrupt, particularly by instituting a comparison between the pretended 
existing Government of France, and the Constitution of Great Britain, 
with respect to the expenses necessary for carrying on the functions 
of Government; he endeavoured to vilify the monarchial part of the 
Constitution, and to represent it as useless, cumbersome, and expen¬ 
sive : At least, the said Thomas Muir did use words and arguments 
of the above seditious tendency and import. Further, the said Thomas 
Muir did, sometime during the course of September, October, or No¬ 
vember 1792, at Glasgow, Kirkintilloch, Milltoun, &c. and elsewhere, 
wickedly and feloniously, exhort and advise several persons to purchase 
and peruse various seditious pamphlets or writings ; particularly, the 
said Thomas Muir did, some time in the months aforesaid, within 
his father’s house at Glasgow, aforesaid, or some other place to the 
public prosecutor unknown, wickedly and feloniously advise John 
Muir senior, late hatter in Glasgow, Thomas Wilson, barber there, 
and John Barclay, residing in the parish of Calder, to read Paine’s 
Rights of Man, and to purchase the same; which book or pamphlet 
entituled, Paine’s Rights of Man, is a most wicked and seditious pub¬ 
lication, calculated to vilify the Constitution of this country, to produce 
a spirit of insurrection among the people, and to stir them up to acts 
of outrage and opposition to the established Government. Further, 
the said Thomas Muir did, in the course of the months of September, 
October, or November aforesaid, wickedly and feloniously distribute 
and circulate, or cause to be distributed and circulated, in the towns 
of Glasgow, Kirkintilloch, and Milltoun aforesaid, See. a number of 
seditious and inflammatory writings or pamphlets; particularly a book 
or pamphlet, entitled, “ The Works of Thomas Paine, Esq.” Also, 
a writing or publication, entitled, “ A Declaration of Rights, and an 
Address to the People, approved of by a number of the Friends of Re¬ 
form in Paisley also, a paper or publication, entitled, “ A Dialogue 
betwixt the Governors and the Governed ;” also, a paper or publica¬ 
tion, entitled, “ The Patriot:” Particularly, the said Thomas Muir 
did, some time in the month of October, or of November aforesaid, 


49 


at Kirkintilloch aforesaid, or at some other place to the public prose¬ 
cutor unknown, wickedly, and feloniously deliver and put into the 
hands of Henry Freeland, weaver in Kirkintilloch, a seditious book 
or pamphlet, entitled, “ The Works of Thomas Paine, Esq.” (which 
the said Henry Freeland carried away with him ;)—which book or 
pamphlet, along with the other wicked, seditious, and inflammatory 
passages, contains inter alia the following:— 

From Paines Works. 

Part I. page 13.— " Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the 
sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against 
them.” 

P. *20.—“ Why is the Constitution of England sickly, but because 
Monarchy hath poisoned the Republic? The Crown hath engrossed 
the Commons. 

“ In England, a King hath little more to do than to make war, and 
to give away places ; which, in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation, 
and set it together by the ears.” 

P. 78—“ What are the present governments in Europe, but a scene 
of iniquity and oppression'? What is that of England ? Do not its own 
inhabitants say it is a market where every man has his price, and where 
corruption is common traffic?” 

P. 54.—“ The attention of the Government of England appears, 
since its political connexion with Germany, to have been so completely 
engrossed and absorbed by foreign affairs, and the means of raising 
taxes, that it seems to exist for no other purposes. Domestic concerns 
are neglected; and with respect to regular law, there is scarcely such 
a thing.” 

And the said Thomas Muir did, some time in October or Novem¬ 
ber aforesaid, within his own or his father’s house at Huntershill, &c., 
or at some other place to the Public Prosecutor unknown, wickedly 
and feloniously put into the hands of William Muir, weaver in Kirkin¬ 
tilloch, eleven numbers of a seditious book or pamphlet, entituled, 
“ The Patriot,” which the said William Muir carried away with him, 
and kept possession of; and which book or pamphlet contained among 
others the following seditious passages : 

From the Patriot. 

No. V. page 168 and 169.-^“ They have lost the distinguishing 
character between freemen and slaves; they have lost the distinguish¬ 
ing character of Englishmen ! They have lost what the most tyrannical 
Kings of England could never force from them ! They have in a great 
measure lost what their forefathers spent their blood and treasure to 
defend—the greatest jewel that any people can possess—their consti¬ 
tutional and natural liberty—their birthright arid inheritance derived 
from God and Nature ! They have lost the constitutional means of 
redress for all their grievances !—What is it, indeed, they have not 
lost by that hated septennial law, which has fettered down the elective 
power of the people, like a dog to a manger, who is only suffered to 
go abroad once in seven years for an airing!” 

No. VI. pp. 184 and 185.—“ Rouse then ye Britons !. Awake from 

D 


50 


the slumbering state of apathy in which you have so long suffered 
yourselves ingloriously to remain ? Open your eyes to the injuries 
which have been heaped on you; and assert your right to have them 
redressed. Evince to all the world that you are the true descendants 
and sons of your once famed glorious ancestors; prove yourselves 
worthy to inherit in its highest degree of perfection, that Constitution 
which they raised by their valour and cemented by their blood. Raise 
your voice—The voice of the people—and sound in the ears of tyrants 
and their abettors, that you will be free, and you are so: That voice 
is the noble, the mighty fiat, which none can, or dare to, attempt to 
gainsay.” 

No. XI. p. 375 .— u And what would the Earl of Chatham have 
thought, if he had lived to hear people now talk of a happy and glo¬ 
rious Constitution, evidently built upon corruption, and supported by 
peculation !” 

P. 419_“ We may easily trace the means by which our nobility 

are at this moment not only in possession of one branch of the Legis¬ 
lature by hereditary claim, but by which they have also monopolized, 
with the addition of a few rich commoners, the majority of voices in 
the House of Commons, which, shame to tell, is barefacedly called the 
Representation of the People. This we pledge ourselves to prove to 
the satisfaction of our readers in the course of this work.” 

And the said paper or publication, entituled, “ A declaration of 
Rights, and Address to the People, approved of by a number of the 
Friends of Reform in Paisley,” distributed and circulated as aforesaid, 
contained the following passages : 

P. 4—“ 1. Being subject to the legislation of persons, whom other 
men have placed over you, it is evident you are denied that which is 
the right of every one, and without which none are free. For to be 
enslaved , is to have no will of your own in the choice of those law 
makers, which have power over your properties, your families, your 
lives, and liberties. Those who have no votes for electing Represen¬ 
tatives are not free, as the rights of nature, and the principles of our 
Constitution, require, but are enslaved to the Representatives of those 
who have votes.” 

P. 5.—“ 3. Should you not associate in your own cause and with 
one voice ? the voice of united milli&os demand reform in the national 
representation.” 

P. 15.—“ gut the evils of long Parliaments—are they not written 
in tears and in blood ? And have they left us aught of liberty but the 
name ? With the poor exception, then, of one year of freedom in 
seven , and that in favour of not one-seventh part of the nation, it is 
demonstrated that you are constantly taxed without being represented, 
and compelled to obey laws to which you never gave assent. Are not 
these the very definitions of slavery ? And, are you not thus degraded 
to a level with the very cattle in the field, and the sheep in the fold; 
which are a property to those who rule over them, and have no power 
to say, why are we bought and sold ? why are we yoked and laden 
with heavy burdens ? why are we fleeced and led to the slaughter ? 


51 


Demand then, with one voice, friends and countrymen, that share in 
making your own laws to which, by the constitution and the laws of 
nature, you are entitled; call for the Bill which would restore your 
lost constitution, and recover your stolen rights. Pursue the only 
course which can ever effect any considerable reduction of debts and 
taxes, or materially advance the interest of manufactures and commerce. 
In short, be free, prosperous, and happy; and give your posterity the 
same cause to revere your memories, as you have to bless those pro¬ 
genitors who left you an inheritance in a free constitution.” 

And the above writing or publication, entitled, “ A Dialogue be¬ 
tween the Governors and the Governed,” distributed and circulated 
as aforesaid, contained, among others, the following passage:— 

“ Civil Governors. —The law enacts that ye be submissive. 

“ People. —The law is the general will, a new order. 

<l Civil Governors —You will be a rebellious people. 

u People. —Nations cannot revolt; tyrants are the only rebels. 

“ Civil Governors .—The King is with us, and he commands you 
to submit. 

fi People. —The Kingly office originates in the people, who elect 
one of themselves to execute it for the general good. Kings, there¬ 
fore, are essentially indivisible from their nations. The King of ours, 
then, cannot be with you; you only possess his phantom. And the 
Military Governors, stepping forward, said, “ The people are timid; 
let us menace them; they only obey force—Soldiers, chastise this 
insolent rabble.” 

“ People. —Soldiers, you are of our own blood !—Will you strike 
your brothers ? If the people perish, who will maintain the army ? 
And the soldiers, grounding their arms, said to their chiefs, We, also, 

are the people, we are the enemies of -.” “ Whereupon the 

Ecclesiastical Governors said—“ There is now but one resource left. 
The people are superstitious; we must frighten them with the name 
of God and of Religion. Our dearly beloved brethren, our children ! 
God has appointed us to govern you ” 

“ People. —Produce to us your heavenly powers. 

“ Priests. —You must have faith. Reason will lead you astray. 

“ People. —Do you govern, then, without reason? 

“ Priests. —God ordains peace. Religion prescribes obedience. 

“ People. —Peace presupposes justice. Obedience has a right to 
know the law it bows to. 

“ Priests. —Man is only born into this world to suffer. 

“ People. —Do you , then, set us the example. 

“ Priests. —Will you live without God and without Kings ? 

“ People .—We will live without tyrants, without impostors.” 

Further, the said Thomas Muir having, upon the 11th, 12th, or 
13th days of December, 1792, or one or other of the days of that 
month, been present at a meeting calling itself ‘ The Convention of 
Delegates of the Associated Friends of the People,’ or assuming some 
such name; which meeting was held in a room commonly called 
Laurie’s room, in James’s court, in the city of Edinburgh, he did then 



and there, with a wicked and seditious design, produce, and read 
aloud to the said meeting, a writing or paper, entitled, “ Address 
from the Society of United Irishmen in Dublin to the Delegates for 
promoting a Reform in Scotland.”* Which writing or paper was’ of 
a most inflammatory nature and seditious tendency, and the said 
Thomas Muir did, immediately thereafter, wickedly and feloniously 
propose that it should be received, and lie on the table of the said 
meeting; and did also move, that the thanks of the meeting, or some 
acknowledgment, should be returned to those from whom the foresaid 
paper or address came. And moreover, the said Thomas Muir did, 
then and there, wickedly and feloniously express his approbation of 
the sentiments contained in the said paper or address, or at least, did 
declare, that it was altogether harmless; or used words and expres¬ 
sions of a similar import. And he having been brought before John 
Pringle, Esq.-j- our Sheriff-depute of the county of Edinburgh, upon the 
2d of January, 1793, did, in his presence, emit and sign a declaration ; 
but immediately thereafter, the said Thomas Muir, conscious of his 
guilt in the premises, did, in order to evade punishment, abscond and 
leave the kingdom ; and was fugitate or outlawed. That having lately, 
in a private and clandestine manner, come into this country, by way 
of Ireland, he was discovered and apprehended, and at the same time, 
sundry papers found in his possession were, together with his pocket- 
book, sealed up in presence of William Ross, Esq. one of our Justices 
of Peace for the shire of Wigton, and will be used in evidence against 
him. The indictment then concludes as follows: At least, times and 
places above-mentioned, the said seditious speeches and harangues 
were uttered, the said seditious books or pamphlets recommended to 
be purchased and perused, the said seditious books or pamphlets circu¬ 
lated and distributed, as aforesaid, and the said wicked and inflam¬ 
matory address produced, read, recommended, and approved of, in 
manner above-mentioned; and the said Thomas Muir is guilty actor, 
or art and part, of all and each, or one or other of the foresaid crimes. 
All which, or part thereof, being found proven by the verdict of an 
assize, before our Lords Commissioners of Justiciary, in a Court of 
Justiciary to be holden by them within the Criminal Court-house of 
Edinburgh, the said Thomas Muir ought to be punished with the 
pains of law, to deter others from committing the like crimes in all 
time coming. 

To this Indictment Mr. Muir pled Not Guilty. 

Lord Justice Clerk. “ Who is your Counsel ?” 

Mr. Muir. “ I am to be my own Counsel.”;}: 

* Vide extract from it, p. 8, of Life. 

f Afterwards created a principal clerk of Session, and of King’s Processes. 

\ Ilis friend the Honourable Henry Erskine, we believe, offered to conduct his 
defence—but for particular reasons Mr. Muir declined. Let it be known that even 
Henry Erskine—the man who shed such lustre on the Scottish Bar, was actually 
driven from his situation as Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, because he was a 
Reformer, and had the audaeity to remain “honest in the worst of times!! !'* 
After this, talk not of the servility of the Writers to the Signet. The servility of 
the Faculty of Advocates, in those days, was many degrees worse. We have our 
eye upon them, and if no one else does it, we shall publish their names, and shew 
the Titles and Pensions tliat some of them received. 


53 


Lord Justice Clerk. “ Have you any tiling to state just now in 
your defence, or on the relevancy of the Libel ?” 

Mr. Muir. “ I have nothing to state till the witnesses are examined, 
when I shall have an opportunity of addressing the Jury. I consider 
the Jury as judges both of the law and the fact. I have already stated 
in writing the nature of the proof I mean to offer in exculpation.’' 

(In point of form it is required in Scotland that the person accused 
should communicate to the prosecutor through the Clerk of Court,-on 
the evening preceding the trial, the substance of his defence in writing, 
accompanied with a list of the witnesses he intends to adduce in sup¬ 
port of such defence. Mr. Muir had complied with this rule.) 

The Clerk of Court therefore now read the following 
Defences for Thomas Muir. 

“ The Criminal Libel is false and injurious. 

“ So far from exciting the People to riot and insurrection, it can 
easily be proved, by a numerous list of witnesses, that upon every oc¬ 
casion, the Pannel exhorted them to pursue measures moderate—legal 
—peaceable—and constitutional. 

“ The charge of distributing seditious publications, and of advising 
the people to read them, is equally false and calumnious. 

“ The Pannel admits that on the great national question , concerning 
an equal Representation of the People in the House of Commons , he 
exerted every effort to procure in that House , a full , fair, and equal 
Representation of the People , as he considered it to he a measure {and 
still does ) the most salutary for the interest of his country. 

“ But the Pannel offers to prove, that, as he considered the informa¬ 
tion of the people to be the chief thing requisite to accomplish this 
great object, he uniformly advised them to read every publication, upon 
either side, which the important question of Parliamentary Reform 
had occasioned. (Signed) “ Thomas Muir.” 

Lord Justice Clerk. “ Have you any thing further to state in sup¬ 
port of your defence ?” 

Mr. Muir. f ‘ My Lords, I have nothing further to state at present. 
I reserve myself till I come before a Jury of my country. I again 
admit that I have done every thing in my power to promote Parlia¬ 
mentary Reform. If that be sedition, I at once plead Guilty to the 
charge. I also admit, that I advised the people to read books of all kinds, 
not this book, nor that book, but books on either side, which would 
tend to inform their minds, on the great and important national ques¬ 
tion which gave rise to their Association, nor shall I hesitate to declare 
my motives.—My Lords, I consider the ignorance of the people to be 
the source from which despotism flows. I am also of opinion that 
an ignorant people, impressed with a sense of grievances, and demand¬ 
ing redress, are exposed to much misery, and perhaps to ultimate ruin. 
Reformation ought always to be preceded by knowledge; and who 
will say, that mankind should he precluded from that information, 
which concerns them so materially ? 

Lord Justice Clerk. “ Do you mean to rest your defence on what 
is stated in this paper? If you have any other facts to prove, it will 


54 


be necessary for you to state them now, before the Jury is impan- 
nelled, as they will not be admitted afterwards.” 

Mr. Muir. “ I offer to prove by thousands of witnesses, that so far 
from recommending 4 seditious practices,’ I have uniformly advised 
the people to follow none but peaceable, orderly, and constitutional 
measures. And, finally, that I exhorted them to connect knowledge 
with liberty, and both with morality. If these be crimes, then I am 
Guilty.” 

Their Lordships now proceeded to give their opinions on the rele¬ 
vancy of the Indictment. 

Lord Henderland. The charge against the Pannel is for a crime of 
the most dangerous tendency. The Pannel, too, is a person belong¬ 
ing to the Faculty of Advocates, who, his Lordship presumed, must 
have received such an education, as might have instructed him in the 
laws and constitution of his country. It is most extraordinary that 
such a person should wickedly, and feloniously, harangue ignorant 
country people, and circulate seditious publications. These practices 
could have no other tendency, than to excite a spirit of discontent 
against the King and Government of this realm, and to introduce level¬ 
ling principles, which the Pannel must have known, from the history 
of his country, had occasioned so much blood more than a century 
ago. Can the Pannel have turned his eyes to the melancholy state of 
a neighbouring nation, to the scenes of blood and devastations in 
France, where the grossest oppression existed under the pretended 
name of liberty and equality? His Lordship sincerely hoped that the 
gentleman would be able to exculpate himself, but we are obliged to 
hold the Indictment true, and which, if proven, must infer every thing 
short of capital punishment. 

Lord Swinton . His Lordship did not believe, that in the memory 
of man there had ever been a libel of a more dangerous tendency read 
in that Court. There was hardly a line of it which, in his opinion, 
did not amount to High Treason. 

Lords Dunsinnan and Abercrombie coincided in opinion as to 
the dangerous tendency of the crime charged; and, if proven, the 
highest punishment should be awarded against the Pannel. 

The Lord Justice Clerk. The crime charged is Sedition—and 
that crime is aggravated according to its tendency. The tendency 
here is plainly to overturn our present happy Constitution—the hap¬ 
piest, the best, and the most noble Constitution in the world; and I 
do not believe it possible to make it better. The books which this 
gentleman has circulated, have a tendency to make the people believe 
that the Government of this country is venal and corrupt, and thereby 
to excite a rebellion. His Lordship agreed to find the libel relevant 
to infer the pains of law. 

An Interlocutor to that effect was accordingly pronounced. 

The Lord Justice Clerk now proceeded to name the Jury, and 
called Sir James Fowlis, of Collington, and Captain John 
Inglis, of Auchindiny. 

Captain Inglis , on answering to his name, rose and stated, that 


being in his Majesty’s service, he did not wish to he on this Jury, as 
he thought it unfair, in a case of this nature, to try Mr. Muir by 
servants of the Crown. 

The Court informed Captain Inglis, that there was no impropriety 
in his being a Juryman, although belonging to the service of Govern¬ 
ment. 

The Lord Justice Clerk , after having selected the first five Jury¬ 
men, asked Mr. Muir if lie had any objection to them ? x 

Mr. Muir . “ My Lords, of these five gentlemen I have no personal 
knowledge. I believe their situations in life are respectable ; and that 
they are men of probity and honour. But my situation and theirs is 
so peculiar, that I am obliged to object to their being upon this Jury. 
My Lords, you know that the question of Parliamentary Reform has 
agitated deeply the minds of men in this country ; different opinions 
have been adopted, and different parties have been formed. The 
gentlemen now selected by your Lordship, as my Jurymen, belonged, 
at that moment, to an Association which assembled in Goldsmiths’ 
Hall, calling themselves the Friends of the Constitution, united to 
support it against what they were pleased to call ‘ republicans and 
levellers,’ and expressing their zeal to suppress 4 tumult and sedition.’ 
My Lords, I belong to the association of the 4 Friends of the People.’ 
Viewing a reform in the representation, as a measure conducive to 
the stability of the Constitution and to the felicity of the people, we 
united our common exertions, by legal measures, to accomplish that 
object. 

“ My Lords, to the Constitution, in its genuine principles, we, 
the friends of the people, have solemnly pledged ourselves. Never 
have we professed to be its enemies ; yet the Association in Goldsmiths’ 
Hall, by a deliberate and public act, have declared that we were the 
enemies of the Constitution. Nay, that Association has denounced us 
to the country as attempting to kindle the torch of civil war, and to 
lay it in blood and destruction I The fact, upon which I found this 
charge, is notorious, and cannot be denied. A Convention of dele¬ 
gates, from all the Societies of the Friends of the People in Scotland, 
assembled in this city on the 11th day of December last. Of this 
Convention I had the honour of being a member. The Convention 
accorded with the Association in Goldsmiths’ Hall, in their zeal to 
support the Constitution, in their abhorrence of sedition, and in their 
determination to concur with good citizens in the suppression of riot 
and tumult. And to testify their principles and their object, the 
Convention ordered a number of its members to repair to Gold¬ 
smiths’ Hall, and to subscribe the declaration there lying of adherence 
to the Constitution. In this number I was included. We did so— 
and what were the consequences ? Why, the Association erased 
our names, and published their proceeding in the Papers of the 
day ! Was not this an act of public proscription against us all ? 
Accused this day of sedition,—of an attempt to overthrow the Con¬ 
stitution, shall those men be my Jurymen, who have not merely 


56 


accused me, but likewise judged and condemned me, without know¬ 
ing me,—without hearing me in my vindication? My Lords, this 
trial is no trivial matter. It affects me; but it affects the country 
more. The noise of it will pass down to other times, and pos¬ 
terity may fancy their most valuable rights connected with its 
consequences. 

“ But, my Lords, this is not the only objection I state to the 
gentlemen of Goldsmiths’ Hall being of my Jury. I am accused of 
circulating the works of Mr. Paine. That Association has publicly 
advertised their horrors at the doctrines contained in these works. 
Nay, more, they have offered a reward of five guineas to any one 
who will discover a person who may have circulated them ! If this 
is not prejudicating my cause, I demand to know what prejudication 
is? Upon these two objections I shall make no farther observations. 
To suppose them not well founded, would be to insult the common 
sense and feelings of mankind. 

“ My Lords, I demand justice.—Let me be tried fairly,—not by a 
Jury of the Association of Goldsmiths’ Hall,—not by a Jury of the 
Association of the Friends of the People, but by men unconnected 
with either, and whose minds are not warped with prejudices. I, 
therefore, solemnly protest that no person, who is a member of 
the Association in Goldsmiths’ Hall, can sit as a Juryman on my 
trial.” 

Solicitor General Blair replied, that he considered this objection 
to be of the most extraordinary nature. The pannel is accused of 
forming associations contrary to the Constitution, and he presumes to 
object to those gentlemen who formed associations in its defence. 
With equal propriety might the pannel object to their Lordships on 
the Bench, to be his Judges in this trial, for their Lordships had 
sworn to defend the Constitution. 

Mr. Muir .—“ This day I will not descend into the quibbles of a 
lawyer. I object to these gentlemen, not because they associated in 
defence of the Constitution. I too, as well as they, have associated in 
defence of the Constitution. But my objection is, that they by an act 
of theirs, have publicly accused me of being an enemy to the Consti¬ 
tution, and have virtually pronounced my condemnation.” 

Lord Justice Clerk .—“ I can see nothing in the objection, and am 
clear for repelling it.” 

The objection was accordingly unanimously repelled by the Court. 
When the Jury were now all selected by the Court and sworn, Mr. 
Muir again rose and stated that he believed them to be men of truth 
and integrity, but he could not help recalling to their attention the 
peculiarity of their situation. They had already determined his fate, 
and as they valued their own reputation and eternal peace, he en¬ 
treated — 

Here Mr. Muir was interrupted by the Court, who concurred in 
opinion that his conduct was extremely improper in taking up their 
time, as the objection had already been repelled.' 


5 7 


(We now publish the names of the Jury, and beg to render some of 
their designations a little more complete than they have yet been :) 

Gilbert Innes of Stow, Foreman.* * * § 

Sir James Fowlis of Collington.j- 
Capt. John Inglis of Auchindiny.J 
John Wauchope of Edmonstone.$ 

Andrew Wauchope of Niddry Marichal.jJ 
John Trotter of Mortonhall. ^ 

James Rochead of Inverleith.** 

John Alves of Dalkeith. 

Wm. Dalrymple, Merchant, Edinburgh. 

Donald Smith, Banker, there, j'f 
James Dickson, Bookseller, there. 

George Kinnear, Banker, there. 

Andrew Forbes, Merchant, there. 

John Horner, Merchant, there. 

John Balfour of Pilrig, Clerk . 

The Lord Advocate now proceeded to call the following evidence 
for the Crown . 

Alex . Johnstone , bleacher, Kincaid Printfield, Campsie. 

Mr. Muir objected to this witness. He did not know him, and 
did not remember if he had ever seen him, but he offered to prove, 
by respectable witnesses, that this man had declared that he would do 
all that he could to get him (Mr. Muir) hanged. 

Solicitor General replied, that if this objection were listened to, 
it would be in the power of any person to disqualify himself from 
being a witness in any cause. 

The Court unanimously repelled the objection. 

The witness being sworn, stated that he was present at a meeting 
in Kirkintilloch, in November last, known by the name of a Reform 
Society. Henry Freeland, weaver in Kirkintilloch, was president. 
Mr. Muir was there, and said he was happy to see so full a meeting; 
he mentioned the disadvantages under which this country laboured 
from an unequal representation of the people in Parliament; said that 
many places which contained great numbers of inhabitants were not 
represented at all; spoke of the Rotten Boroughs, and the small 
number of votes in such places—the influence of Lords—and that one 

* DeputyLieutenant for the County of Edinburgh, &c. &c. We observe this gentle ¬ 
man has lived to append his name to the late anftVreform petition in Edinburgh. 
He must now be nearly worn out in the service !— See p. 20. 

f See Pension list of Scotland name “ Fowlis.” 

| In the pay of Government. 

§ Commissioner of Property Tax, Edinburgh. 

|| Commissioner of Property Tax, Edinburgh. Par nobile fratrum ! 

- ^ One of the protogees of the late Lord Melville. 

** Commissioner of Property Tax, Edinburgh. 

ff Deputy Lieutenant, Edinburgh. 

We have thus analyzed the majority of these gentlemen, and leave the rest in 
peace and quietness. 


58 


man in some places could make two Members of Parliament—that the 
Members of the British Parliament were often not the representatives of 
the people—that if a man threw away L.20,000, in making himself a 
Member of Parliament, he surely had some interest in it—that the Duke 
of Richmond had complained of this, but that L.30,000 had been put 
into his pocket to silence him. Mr. Muir also observed that the French 
would now, without a doubt, be successful—that they were more 
equally represented than the people of Britain, and their taxes less. 
Mr. Muir pointed out regulations for the Society; said they should 
be well acquainted with the principles of those they admitted into it: 
the sole intention of such societies was to obtain a more equal repre¬ 
sentation of the people, and a shorter duration of Parliaments—advised 
the meeting to publish their sentiments, to obtain political knowledge 
by corresponding with other Societies, and reading political books or 
pamphlets. The witness being Interrogated if Mr. Muir men¬ 
tioned any particular book—answered, that he mentioned none in 
particular. Interrogated hy the Solicitor General , if there was 
any thing said about the Royal family—No, nothing was said on that 
subject, except that they were to hold it legal to have a King: No¬ 
thing was said about the powers of the King, or the expenses which 
his Government might incur: Some person present inquired into the 
principles of the Society ; and one near him said, that for his part he 
had no need of any explanation, as he had read Paine’s Rights of 
Man: Did not know that Mr. Muir heard this conversation : The 
meeting was principally composed of Weavers, from 18 to 21 years 
of age : Mr. Muir did not join the meeting till after it was constituted : 
It was known that he would attend: He was considered the chief 
person at it: Mr. Muir recommended to the people, who intended to 
form themselves into Societies for Reform, to do so as soon as possible, 
in order that they might be able to communicate their sentiments to 
one another, and lay their Petitions before Parliament. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir: Admitted that Mr. Muir recom¬ 
mended order and regularity, and told the meeting that any act of 
tumult would ruin their common cause, and that there was no other 
mode of procuring redress but by applying to Parliament: He also 
recommended to the meeting to beware of admitting immoral characters 
as members. 

Robert Weddel, weaver in Kirkintilloch, was at a meeting at 
Kirkintilloch in November last—the object of which was to obtain 
Parliamentary Reform : It was called a meeting of the “ Friends of 
the PeopleWitness was vice-president of the meeting, and James 
Baird was secretary: Saw Mr. Muir after it was constituted, who 
made a speech about the inequality of representation: Mr. Muir 
was for King, Lords, and Commons: Said that the Society ought 
to petition the House of Commons, and proceed in a constitutional 
manner: Nothing was said about the expenses of the King, or the 
burden of taxes, or any comparison made between the Government 
of France and of this country: Did not recollect how long Mr. 
Muir spoke: Was at another meeting with him : The conversation 


59 


at this second meeting (in the house of W. Wallace, Kirkintilloch) 
was on different subjects,—relating to the news of the country,— 
and about books: There might be above eight individuals present; 
not one-fourth of the first meeting : Henry Freeland, president, and 
James Baird, secretary of the former meeting, were present at this one 
also: Flower’s book on the French Constitution was mentioned in the 
course of the conversation : Witness never heard of that book before : 
Thinks it was Muir who mentioned the book, but cannot be positive: 
Paine’s book was not spoken of at this meeting, but was at the former, 
where one Robert Boyd asked Mr. Muir’s opinion of Paine, and Mr. 
Muir answered, that it was a book quite foreign to their purpose. 

The Lord Advocate asked the witness what was said about Flower 
on the French Constitution ? 

Mr . Muir objected to the question: “ My Lords, Mr. Flower’s 
hook contains no sedition ; but although it had been of a most sedi¬ 
tious and treasonable nature, yet the indictment is utterly silent about 
it. I am not here accused of recommending or circulating that book, 
and how, therefore, can any thing concerning it be now adduced in 
evidence against me ? I plead upon a great principle of natural justice. 
I look forward to other times, and tremble for the precedent. If 
this were not the case I would say, not merely that I approved of 
Mr. Flower’s book, which does honour to its enlightened author, but 
in this great audience, I would recommend its principles to every man 
who values his country.” 

Lord Advocate .—“ The charge against the pannel is sedition, 
branched out under various heads. One is, advising people to pur¬ 
chase seditious books, and the prosecutor was entitled to examine as 
to such facts, though every particular book or fact was not condescended 
on in the libel.” 

Mr. Muir replied, that a charge in criminal law ought not to be 
general. Would it be fair in the Lord Advocate, if he, Mr. Muir, 
had been tried for robbery, to bring a proof that he was guilty of 
murder? He could have proved that Mr. Flower’s book is no libel, 
or he might have brought evidence to prove that he never recommended 
or circulated it; but here an unfair advantage was taken of him ; it 
was a secret trap, an engine laid to ensnare him. 

Lord Justice Clerk .—By the statute of James the 6th, wherever 
“ art and part,” is libelled, there can be no objection to the generality. 
This is a proper question—and it has a tendency to establish the major 
proposition, and it ought to be sustained. 

The Lord Advocate , however, gave up the question. 

The examination of the witness was resumed. He deponed that 
there was something mentioned at the meeting about purchasing books, 
and Henry’s History of England was mentioned. Being interrogated 
as to what books were purchased in consequence of this conversation ? 
Mr. Muir objected to the question on the same ground as before ; but 
the objection was repelled by the Court. The witness was then again 
interrogated, what were the books he had purchased, or any other 
person he knew ? Deponed, that he purchased two or three copies of 


60 


the Political Progress of Great Britain, and three or four copies of 
the Paisley Declaration of Rights : That these purchases were made 
merely for his own amusement: That a copy was laid upon the table 
before the meeting was gathered : Knew of no copies of Paine being 
circulated: Had read it, but did not recollect from whom he had 
received it: Had seen one of the numbers of the Patriot, which was 
shown to him by William Muir. 

Cross-examined —Henry’s History of England was spoken of by 
Mr. Muir: Did not advise the people to riot: Mr. Muir rather 
advised them to constitutional measures, and said, the more constitu¬ 
tional the more successful they would be. 

Re-interrogated by Solicitor General , and asked what he meant 
by a Reform in Parliament ? Was every man to have a vote ? Wit¬ 
ness hesitated, and said there were different opinions—they wanted a 
more equal representation. Interrogated what he meant by a more 
equal representation—who were to have votes ? The witness did 
not reply readily to this question, and the Solicitor General observed, 
that he wondered what Mr. Muir intended to make of the people ;— 
if all the members of the Society were as ignorant as this witness— 
this Vice-President—they must know nothing about the matter. 
Witness then stated, that there were two opinions in the Society—one 
party was for having the rights of voting confined to landed property, 
the other wanted every man to have a vote. Interrogated , which 
party was he of? Witness had not fully made up his mind on the 
question. Did Mr. Muir give his opinion on this point ? He did not. 

Again cross-examined by Mr. Muir —Witness remembered that 
Mr. Muir dissuaded the people from tumult and sedition ; and stated 
to the Society, that if they were to pursue unconstitutional measures, 
he (Mr. Muir) would desert them: Did not recommend one book 
more than another. 

Rev. James Lapslie ,* Minister of Campsie. 

Mr. Muir rose and stated, that he had many objections to state, 
both to the admissibility and credibility of this witness. “ My Lords, 
My delicacy with regard to that man will, at present, permit me to 
adduce the least weighty only, for I mean to prove the most important 
in a different shape—in a criminal prosecution against him, when he 
and I shall exchange places at this bar. I know not what title this 
reverend gentleman has to act as an agent for the Crown, but this I 
offer to prove, that he assisted the messengers of the law in exploring 
for, and citing witnesses against me ;—that he attended the Sheriffs in 

their different visits to the parishes of Campsie and Kirkintilloch ;_ 

that previously to the precognition he conversed with the witnesses 
for the Crown—that he attended their precognition—put questions 
to them, and took down notes—nay more, that, without being cited 
by the prosecutor, he has voluntarily come forward as a witness on 
this trial. My Lords, upon other matters I shall not here dwell;_it 


* See the sketch of him, p, H, 


is sufficient for me to say, that this witness attended the precognition 
of other witnesses, and the uniform and late decisions of your Lord- 
ships have sustained this objection.” 

The Court allowed Mr. Muir to adduce evidence in support of 
his objection, and he called 

Henry Freeland, weaver, in Kirkintilloch, who deponed, that he 
was examined in a house in Kirkintilloch, before Mr. Honyman,* 
Sheriff of Lanarkshire. Mr. Lapslie was present, and put questions 
to witness. Lapslie asked him if he had ever seen Mr. Muir at any 
meetings? Witness answered, he had. When witness was signing- 
his deposition before the Sheriff, Mr. Lapslie asked witness, “If he 
had got a college education ? ,? Upon answering in the negative, 
Lapslie clapped witness on the shoulder, and said, “ You write a 
good hand.” Witness did not reply immediately, and Mr. Lapslie 
said, “ It is a pity for such a clever young man as you to be a wea¬ 
ver. Mr. Honyman will, perhaps, procure you a birth.” Witness 
said, i( that is flattery!” Mr. Lapslie again clapped him on the 
shoulder, and said, “ Not at all,—Mr. Honeyman will probably call 
on you again.” 

llobert Henry , engraver, Kincaid printfield. Witness admitted that 
he was examined at Milton, by the Sheriff, and that Mr. Lapslie was 
present. 

llobert M‘Kinlay, print-cutter, near Paisley, was examined at 
Campsie, by the Sheriff; Mr. Lapslie, and Mr. Slieils from Glasgow, 
were present. Mr. Lapslie spoke to witness before the examination, 
and bade him tell every thing, as it did not concern him, (the witness,) 
but Mr. Muir. 

Mr. Muir now proceeded to call James M‘ Gibbon, when the Lord 
Advocate gave up Mr. Lapslie’s evidence; consequently no other 
witnesses Were examined in regard to the conduct of that gentleman. 

The evidence for the Crown was then resumed. 

Henry Freeland was present at a meeting in Kirkintilloch, called 
a Society for Reform, in November last—witness was president— 
Mr. Muir was there and made a speech that lasted about a quarter of 
an hour. The general purport of the speech was as to shortening 
the duration of Parliament, and a more equal representation of the 
people. Mr. Muir thought the taxes might be lessened by these 
means—said that a Reform was not to affect the King or Lords, but 
only the Commons. Mention was made of the success of the French 
arms, and that liberty would be established in France. Mr. Muir 
spoke of political books, but witness does not recollect of any but 
Henry’s History of England—Witness remembers to have seen the 
proceedings of the Westminster Association, the Patriot, and Paisley 
Declaration. It had been suggested by one Boyd to purchase Paine, 
but Mr. Muir shook his head and said it was foreign to the purpose. 
Had some farther conversation with Mr. Muir in the house of Wallace, 


* Afterwards created a Baronet, and Lord of Session and Justiciary—See 
Pension list of Scotland for “ Honeyman.” 


Innkeeper, Kirkintilloch ; Mr. Muir said that Paine’s hook had a ten¬ 
dency to mislead weak minds.—Witness expressed a wish to see the 
book—Mr. Muir told him it was in his great-coat pocket lying on a 
chair in the room. Witness then took the book out of the great-coat 
pocket, and said he was surprised that Mr. Muir did not recommend 
it to him, because every body was pleased with it. Witness said to 
Mr. Muir that he believed the King’s Proclamation was directed 
against Paine’s book: Mr. Muir agreed in this : Witness took the 
book home with him and read it: He also gave it to others to read, 
viz. John Scott, vvright, and John Stewart, cooper, members of the 
Society: Witness received two letters from Mr Muir—they took no 
notice of the circulation of the books: Mr. Muir said that a Convention 
of Delegates of the Friends of the People was to be held soon at 
Edinburgh, and he hoped to see witness there. A copy of Paine’s 
work produced in Court, was identified by witness to be the book 
which he took out of Mr. Muir’s great-coat pocket, as before stated : 
Witness first spoke of the book to Mr. Muir: William Muir was also 
present on the occasion. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir: Witness had a conversation about 
forming a Reform Society before he saw Mr. Muir : Mr. "Wallace, 
in whose house the meeting took place, was an old servant of Mr. 
Muir’s father: Mr. Muir recommended no particular book except 
Henry’s History of England: He cautioned them to be careful that 
they admitted none but persons of good moral character into their 
society—also advised them to follow none but legal and constitutional 
measures—and said mobs would ruin their cause. 

Interrogated by Mr.Muir, “whywasyou sodesirous to see Paine’s 
book ?” Witness answered, “ because I was informed that the King’s 
Proclamation was directed against it, and I was curious to see a book 
that was so much spoken of.” 

William Muir , weaver in Kirkintilloch: When the oath was pro¬ 
posed to be administered to this witness, he refused to swear, as being 
contrary to his religious principles : Being asked what these principles 
were, he replied that he was one of those who were called the Moun¬ 
tain : That he had no objection to be examined—and would tell the 
whole truth, but could not wrong his conscience by taking an oath 
which he considered unlawful. 

The Court told him, if he would not swear, he would be committed 
to prison,—that there was no way by which he could ever obtain his 
liberation, and that his imprisonment would be perpetual: He replied 
that he could not help it, and that he knew the Lord could be with 
him in prison as well as any where else. 

The Lord Advocate moved that this person should be committed 
to prison for his contumacy—and in express words informed him that 

there was no way by which he could ever be set free_that, in short, 

“ his imprisonment would be eternal! !” 

Mr. Muir —My Lords, I believe this person to be a good and con¬ 
scientious man. Whether he be right or wrong in refusing to take 
this oath, is not an object of .my inquiry: He is adduced as a witness, 


63 


in the prosecution against me. I have therefore the most material 
interest that he should be sworn, but rather than he should suffer for 
acting according to the dictates of his conscience, I waive my right, 
and I will admit every word he utters, though not upon oath, to be 
as true as if it were. 

The Court observed that neither they nor the Jury could listen to 
any evidence except such as was given upon oath. The law expressly 
required it—and it could not be dispensed with. 

The witness persisting in his refusal, the Court committed him to 
prison, declaring that they knew no mode by the law of Scotland by 
which he could be liberated! He nevertheless went to prison with 
the most astonishing composure. 

John Brown , weaver at Lennoxtoun, Campsie : Was present at a 
meeting at Campsie about the month of October or November last: 
Mr. Muir and Mr. Buchanan were also present, and both spoke at 
that meeting: Witness was also at a meeting in Kirkintilloch : Did 
not understand that these meetings were called by Mr. Muir: Wit¬ 
ness bought Paine’s book, but does not recollect whether he did so 
before or after the meetings: Witness bought the book from mere 
curiosity, having seen it accidentally in the window of a shop in 
Glasgow : Does not remember whether that book was mentioned at 
the meetings: Does not recollect Mr. Muir speaking of France : 
The tenour of Mr. Muir’s speech was to inculcate on the meeting the 
necessity of sobriety—to pursue constitutional measures—and to 
read constitutional books. In a conversation witness heard Mr. 
Muir say that Paine’s book was not a constitutional book, and would 
not do. 

Ann Fisher , late servant to Mr. Muir’s father.*—Witness, while 
in the service of Mr. Muir’s father, had frequent occasion to know 
how Mr. Muir was employed : During the vacation in harvest last, he 
was chiefly engaged in reading and writing: Does not know what he 
was writing: Remembers going to Mr. Menons, Printer in Glasgow, 
with a paper, which witness thinks was called a “ Declaration of 
Rights,” in order to have it reprinted : Saw a great number of country 
people come to Mr. Muir’s father’s house, with whom he had some¬ 
times conversation in the back shop: Has often heard Mr. Muir say 
that Paine’s Rights of Man was a very good book: Witness has 
bought that book for people in his company, sometimes at his desire, 
and sometimes at desire of the people: Remembers of being Sent to 
purchase a Civic Sermon: Mr. Muir’s uncle (Alexander Muir) was 
one of the people for whom she bought two different parts, at different 
times, of Paine’s book: Also bought it for John Muir, hatter, who 
was much pressed by Mr. Muir to get one: Witness bought the book 

* This woman was precognosced by the Rev. Mr. Lapslie. She was the prin¬ 
cipal witness against Mr. Muir, and it was noticed in the early reports of the trial 
that she answered the questions put to her by the prosecutor, with much prompti¬ 
tude and flippancy, and did not appear to be any way embarrassed when before the 
Court, a circumstance rather unusual for a girl in her situation of life. But we, 
perhaps, can give a cue to all this, when we state, that shortly before the trial 
she was taken into the service of the late Mr. John Carlisle, Collector of Taxes 
for Glasgow ! We will give the remainder of her history in a little. 


in Brash and Reid’s, Booksellers, Glasgow: She purchased it also for 
one Barclay, a Weaver at Calder: Knows Thomas Wilson, who is Mr. 
Muir’s hairdresser : Muir told Wilson to buy Paine’s work, and keep 
it in his shop for the people who came there : Muir said it would 
enlighten their minds, and that it confuted Mr. Burke entirely: Wit¬ 
ness herself has read Paine's book, as she was curious to see what was 
in it: The copy she read belonged to Mr. Muir’s servant.* Witness 
has also seen Flower on the French Constitution : Has also seen the 
Declaration of Rights in Mr. Muir’s room, and in the dining-room : 
Also the Dialogue betwixt the Governors and the Governed, which 
she has heard him read to his mother, sister, and others, but does not 
know any other persons who were present: Mr. Muir said it Was 
written by Volnew,f one of the first wits in France: Witness does not 
remember to have seen the Patriot, but has heard Mr. Muir read the 
Paisley Declaration: Never heard him read law-books: Mr. Muir’s 
conversation was commonly on political subjects, and he frequently 
read French law-books: Witness recollected hearing a conversation, 
wherein Mr. Muir said, that if every body had a vote he would be 
Member of Parliament for Calder : That Members of Parliament 
would then have 30s. or 40s. a-day, and that none but honest men 
would be Members of Parliament, who would keep the Constitution 
clear : That they would give new Counsellors to the King, who would 
govern the nation with justice : Mr. Muir said that France would 
soon be one of the most flourishing nations in the world, for they had 
abolished tyranny and were free: He also said that our Constitution 
would be very good if it had a thorough Reform : And that the Court 
of Justiciary would need a thorough Reform too, for it was nonsense 
to see the parade with which the Circuit Lords came into Glasgow : 
Said they got their money for nothing but pronouncing sentence of 
death on poor creatures, &c. 

Mr . Muir here rose and objected to this line of examination.—He 
said, that the conduct of the Lord Advocate was in every respeci 
highly reprehensible. Fie has put a variety of questions to witnesses, 
with regard to crimes of which I am not accused. The indictment 
charges me with making seditious speeches at Kirkintilloch and at 
Campsie, vilifying the Constitution and the King, and inflaming the 
minds of the people to rebellion. It charges me with distributing 
seditious books—and it specifies that I gave away Mr. Paine’s works 
—the Dialogue by Volney, &c. The indictment charges nothing 
more. There is not a word within its four corners which points out 
to me the charge of speaking disrespectfully of Courts of Justice, or 
“ tending” in any manner to excite the people against the administration 
of the law. If the Public Prosecutor had evidence that I was guilty 
of a crime of this nature, he ought to have made it an article of accu¬ 
sation, and then I would have defended myself in the best way I could. 
But to attempt to steal it in as evidence in this way, to prove a crime 
which he durst not openly libel, because he knew it could not be 

* This other servant was not examined to confirm Fisher ! 

f Volney. 


65 


supported, deserves the severest reprobation, I know the tendency 
of this little art. This witness—this domestic and well-tutored spy, 
is brought to prove words which may irritate the minds of your Lord- 
ships against me. Yes, this is the artifice—this is the object. But, 
my Lords, I contend upon the great principle of natural justice—upon 
the Constitutional law of this country, that no person can be tried for 
a crime of which he has not been previously accused. What is the 
purpose of an indictment? and why is it served upon the pannel fifteen 
days before his trial, but just to enable him to prepare for his defence ? 
It is vain to say that, under the general charge of sedition, every thing 
“ tending” to prove it, can be adduced, though not specially mentioned. 
If this is now to be adopted as law, what portion remains to us of our 
national liberties ? Every thing is insecure—an indictment will no 
longer be regarded but as a piece of unmeaning paper. The unfortu¬ 
nate man who receives it may say, I am charged with robbery—I 
have many witnesses to prove I did not perpetrate the crime, but 
what avails preparing a defence ? For I may be instantly called upon 
to defend myself against a charge of murder-—of sedition—-or of high 
treason. In short, if under the specious pretence of being allowed to 
introduce what is not specified in the libel, to support its generality, 
—if you establish a precedent of this kind, you strike a fatal blow 
against individual security, of general safety, and the forms, precedents* 
and principles of the Criminal law of this country are for ever gone, 
it is vain to say that the statute of James the 6th allows this pro¬ 
ceeding. That statute is now obsolete. It was enacted under a 
despotic reign, when the freedom of Scotland was trampled under the 
foot of power. It opposes every principle of justice, and will you, 
my Lords, after the lapse of so many years, descend into the grave, 
and drag up the pestilential carcase, in order that it may poison the 
political atmosphere ? This question, my Lords, is of little importance 
to the individual who is now struggling for the liberties of his country. 
But the eyes of your children will be fixed upon this trial, and they 
will tremble and shudder at the precedent. I feel for the country—I 
feel for posterity—I wiH not sanction the procedure, which is to 
produce to both a system of injustice—of ruin—and of murder. 

Lord Advocate. The pannel is indicted for the crime of sedition, 
and that crime may consist of many facts and circumstances, and of 
these the strongest must be, the feloniously and seditiously stirring 
up the inhabitants against the King and Constitution. To prove this, 
his Lordship contended, that he was entitled to bring, in evidence, 
every word of any conversation which might have passed betwixt Mr. 
Muir and ignorant people,—every paper, every fact, and every witness 
which could be got. No person could deny the relevancy of the fact, 
viz. that the abusing and vilifying the Courts of Justice was an aggra¬ 
vation of the crime of sedition,—it is that crime of which the pannel is 
accused, and his Lordship certainly would be permitted to bring for¬ 
ward every thing which could support the charge. If it had been neces¬ 
sary to specify in the indictment, all the facts against the pannel, that 
indictment would have covered, by its magnitude, the walls of the Court. 


66 


Mr. Muir . This is not the time to entertain your Lordships with 
frothy declamation—with sounding, but unmeaning periods. I pleaded 
my objection upon just principles. Every person here must see their 
strength, and admit their truth. 

Lord Swinton said, that it was the general proposition of the libel, 
that the pannel went about sowing sedition; and as Courts of Justice 
were parts of the Constitution, he was of opinion, that reflecting on 
them was included in the general charge. 

Lord Dunsinnan was of the same opinion, and declared that every 
particular circumstance, that may come out in evidence, need not be 
libelled. 

Lord Abercrombie said, there was no necessity for specifying in 
the libel every seditious expression that might be used. 

The Lord Justice Clerk, after making a few observations, also 
concurred, and the objection was therefore unanimously disregarded. 

The witness, Ann Fisher , on being re-called, stated, that she heard 
Mr. Muir say, he was for a Monarchy under proper restrictions; 
that a republican form of Government was best; but that, as the 
Monarchy had been so long established in this country, it would be 
improper to alter it. Witness was sent, by Mr. Muir’s desire, 
to an organist in the streets of Glasgow, and desired him to play 
Ca Ira. 

The examination of Fisher being now concluded by the Lord Ad¬ 
vocate, Mr. Muir was asked if he had any questions to put to the 
witness ? He replied, “ No, my Lords ; I disdain to put any ques¬ 
tions to such a witness.” 

The witness, on her part, turned round, and asked the Court if 
she might put a question to Mr. Muir ? The Lord Justice Clerk 
said he would not permit this, and his Lordship characterized Mr. 
Muir’s recent expressions as very improper. 

His Lordship complimented the witness by saying, that “ he had 
never heard a more distinct and accurate witness in his life.” 

Lord Henderland declared, that if Mr. Muir had not been standing 
at that bar, as a pannel, he would have ordered him to prison for the 
expressions he had just used ! 

As the witness was withdrawing, one of the Jurymen (Captain 
Inglis) called her back, and asked her, if she had had any quarrel in 
Mr. Muir’s father’s family ? To which she replied, that, so far from 
that, her mistress had given her five shillings more than her wages, 
and that Miss Muir had given her a petticoat, with some other 
presents.* 

Thomas Wilson , barber in Glasgow, was in use to dress Mr. Muir 
in autumn last. Mr. Muir asked witness if he had bought Paine’s 
works ? Witness said he had not. Mr. Muir advised him to get a 


* She might have added, that Mr. Muir’s mother supported her parents when 
they were in a state of abject poverty. These circumstances, and others we could 
state, only make the conduct of this witness the more flagrant. We are not yet 
done with her. 


67 


copy, as a barber’s shop was a good place to read. Witness did not 
purchase the work, but be bought a copy of the “ Address to the 
Addressors,” and kept it a day or two, but this was not by Mr. 
Muir’s advice. Remembers an old man from the country coming to 
Mr. Muir, when he was dressing him, and Mr. Muir told witness 
that the old man was a great Reformer, on which the old man replied, 
that Mr. Muir was only taunting him. 

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Witness has heard Mr. Muir say, 
that he would maintain the Constitution ;—that he wished for peace, 
good order, and morals among the people—never heard him say any 
thing against the King: Has seen Mr. Muir’s library in the country, 
which is a large room open to all the family. 

After this witness was examined, the Lord Advocate-informed the 
Court that he had just received a note from Mr. Dunn, Minister of 
Kirkintilloch, (cited as a witness) respecting Mr. Muir, who was com¬ 
mitted to prison for refusing to take the oath : The note intimated that 
Mr. Muir was a parishioner of Mr. Dunn’s, and that if the latter 
were allowed to converse with him, he might be able to remove his 
objection to taking the oath : After some dissussion, Mr. Dunn was 
sent to converse with the prisoner in presence of one of the officers of 
Court, and Mr. Dunn* was ordered to confine himself solely to the 
removing of Muir’s scruples, and not to say any thing on the subject 
of the trial. 1 

John Muir , hat manufacturer in Glasgow, knew Mr. James 
Muir’s father: Saw Mr. Muir at his house in September last: Mr. 
Muir and witness had a conversation about Mr. Paine’s book: Wit¬ 
ness asked Mr. Muir as a favour to get it for him, when Mr. Muir 
said, he had it not, but would send for it: A servant girl was ac¬ 
cordingly sent for the book, and she purchased it at Brash and Reid’s, 
booksellers in Glasgow: Witness took home the book with him and 
read it. 

John Barclay , of Calder, was acquainted with Mr. Muir: Con¬ 
versed with him about Paine’s work, because witness saw it adver¬ 
tised in the papers: Mr. Muir said he might buy it, but added “ it is 
not a book for usWitness was an elder in the parish of Calder, and 
voted on the same side with Mr. Muir in the election of a minister: 
In consequence of this, witness was frequently with Mr. Muir, and 
in his library, from which witness borrowed books: Had many con- 

* This gentleman got over the finger ends by the Lords of Justiciary. He had 
preached a Sermon before the Synod, and the Reformers thought it so liberal and 
excellent, that they sent Mr. Dunn their written vote of thanks for it. This 
was quite enough to stamp the good man as a radical. His house was searched 
for “seditious papers.” He took alarm—and threw the vote of thanks in the fire. 
He candidly told the fact. But what was the consequence? The Lord Advo- 
cate presented a Petition and Complaint against him to the Lords of Justiciary. 
He threw himself “on the clemency of the Court.” “ Their Lordships after de¬ 
livering their opinions on the criminality of the act in which they wex-e unani¬ 
mous, observed that if Mr. Dunn had been served with an indictment, (instead of 
a Petition and Complaint,) and been found guilty, the Court must have inflicted 
the highest arbitrary punishment. But their Lordships were pleased at being 
relieved from going so great a length. They therefore ordained him to be imprisoned 
in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh for three months ! ! !"—Vide Edin. Advertiser , 1793. 


68 


versations with Mr. Muir, heard him say that the Constitution was 
an excellent one, and the best in the world: Heard Mr. Muir praise 
the King, and always heard him speak of order, regularity, and obe¬ 
dience to the ruling powers. 

James Campbell , W. S. was present at a meeting of the Convention : 
Called there on his way home from the Parliament House: Mr. Muir 
came to the meeting soon after, and read a paper, being the address 
from the Society of United Irishmen : Colonel Dalrymple opposed 
the paper being read, and talked of taking a protest: After Mr. Muir 
read it he said nothing more, but before he read it lie spoke of answer¬ 
ing it: Does not know how the paper came there. Interrogated 
whether the purport of Mr. Muir’s speeches approved or not of this 
paper? Witness answered, that he knows nothing more than that he 
proposed its being read and answered: It was assigned as a reason 
for not receiving the address, that they had no connexion with it: 
Mr. Muir thought there was no impropriety in receiving and answering 
the address, and said he would take the burden on his own shoulders. 

James Denholm , Writer, Edinburgh, was at the Convention in 
December: Pannel was there: Heard him read the Irish address: 
Objections were made : Mr. Muir answered that he saw no harm in 
it, and moved that an answer should be sent to it, though witness 
thinks it was carried that an answer should not be sent. 

Cross-examined. —Never heard Mr. Muir say any thing unconsti¬ 
tutional : The object of the Association was to get a Reform in Par¬ 
liament. 

Mr. Robert Forsyth , Advocate : * Witness was a member of the 
Convention of Delegates of the Friends of the People, who met in 
December last: Was present when Mr. Muir read the Irish address: 
Recollects that objections were made to the reading of it: Some 
members objected to the legality of the paper: Witness objected to it 
on the ground that it was “ not expedient to answer itThere were 
some exceptionable passages in it. In one place it said something 
about an inviolable Constitution being tyranny: Witness thought they 
should have nothing to do with it: At same time, witness did not 
think it a seditious paper ; only that it contained some expressions too 
strong: Mr. Muir defended the paper, and proposed that it should lie 
on the table and be answered. 

Cross-examined. —Witness remembered the Convention coming to 
a resolution of adhering to the genuine principles of the Constitution : 
The object of the Convention was to obtain a Reform in Parliament: 
Was not present when a resolution was entered into about sedition, 
and for expunging such members as behaved riotously : Mr. Muir 
proposed that a suitable answer should be sent to the Irish address: 
Never heard him advise the people to sedition, tumult, or riot, and 
never heard him make any speeches that had that tendency. 


* This gentleman has surely changed his early political principles, for we observe 
his name at the late anti-reform petition in Edinburgh!— Vide Scotsman news¬ 
paper o f Marchy 1631 . 


69 


William Muir —The Rev. Mr. Dunn having succeeded in remov¬ 
ing the scruples of this individual, he returned to Court, and took the 
oath as a witness. He then stated that he was present at a meeting 
in the house of W. Wallace in Kirkintilloch with Mr. Muir: Henry 
Freeland and Wallace were there: They had a copy of Paine’s works 
at this meeting*, which was taken out of Mr. Muir’s great-coat pocket: 
Does not know whether Mr. Muir desired it to be taken out of his 
pocket: Does not recollect what was said about the book: Knows 
that Paine’s book says that the people’s will is the sovereign will : 
Cannot say that the pannel said so : Witness got the loan of 11 Nos. 
of the Patriot, and Political Progress, from Mr. Muir, at Huntershill: 
Witness mentioned that he was in a Reading Society, and Mr. Muir 
bade him shew the pamphlets to the Society: Heard pannel speak 
something about the inequality of the representation, and mentioned 
Old Sarum. 

Henry Davidson , Sheriff-Substitute of the county of Edinburgh, * 
was called to prove the declarations emitted by Mr. Muir before the 
Sheriff, and the papers found upon him when apprehended at Stranraer. 
Mr. Muir, however, in order to save time and trouble, offered to admit 
them under condition that none of them should be used as evidence 
of criminality, seeing there was not a single article in the indict¬ 
ment which alleged that. these papers were even of a culpable 
“ tendency.” 

The Lord Advocate insisted that he was entitled to bring forward 
every circumstance which might tend to criminate the pannel; although 
these circumstances should only be collateral, and not in direct issue. 

The Clerk of Court was about to read the declaration, letters, &c. 
inserted in the Appendix, when 

Mr. Muir stated, that before the letters were read he had an objec¬ 
tion to state, though he believed lie would state it in vain, for however 
just any objection made by him might be, it was sure to be over-ruled ; 
but every mind tinctured with humanity would shrink at the wanton 
disclosure of the anxiety and grief of a private family for the purpose 
of indulging an idle curiosity.j' 

The Lord Advocate disclaimed any intention of indulging in idle 
curiosity, but insisted that the letters should be read, as they would 
go to shew that the pannel was conscious of his guilt. 

Mr. Muir —I am convinced of the reverse. 'I now, therefore, join 
issue with the prosecutor, and consent to these letters being read. 
There was nothing in them which he wished to conceal on his own 
account. 

After the declaration and letters, &c. had been read, the Lord Ad¬ 
vocate declared the proof finished on the part of the Crown. 

Mr. Muir proceeded to adduce the following evidence in support of 
his defence. 

* Afterwards appointed Sheriff Clerk, county of Haddington. 

t Mr. Muir obviously referred to letters he had received from his father and 
mother. 


70 


William Starving, of Strathruddie, Secretary to the British Con¬ 
vention. Witness knows that it was considered necessary that Mr. 
Muir should attend a meeting of the Friends of the People, held in 
London in January last. Witness received a letter from Mr. Muir, 
mentioning that he had appeared in the Society at London, of which 
Mr. Grey* is a member, and giving an account of what had been 
done there. Witness cannot at present find the letter, owing to some 
late circumstances which occurred in his family ; but, according to the 
best of his recollection, it also stated, that Mr. Muir was advised by 
some friends to go to France, as he might have some influence with 
the leading people there, in mitigating the fate of the King. While 
Mr. Muir was at Paris, witness received a letter from him, giving an 
account of the execution ; and Mr. Muir stated, that he would return 
to Scotland as soon as his friends here thought his presence necessary. 
Witness has frequently been with Mr. Muir in private, and often 
heard him speak in public in the Societies: Never heard him speak 
against the Constitution : The general tenour of Mr. Muir’s address 
to the people in the Societies was, to impress on their minds the 
necessity of good order: Never heard Mr. Muir speak against the 
monarchial part of our Constitution. Witness has been in his com¬ 
pany in his most unguarded moments : Remembers a private conver¬ 
sation with Mr. Muir, in which he disapproved of many of the 
principles in Paine’s book, and both agreed that many of them were 
impracticable. Interrogated by the Lord Advocate , if he was not 
the person who had designed himself, on a late occasion, Secretary 
General to the Association of the Friends of the People ? Witness 
answered, that it was a mere mistake in writing out the petition— 
he was Secretary to the General Association of the Friends of the 
People. 

James Campbell , W. S. acted as agent for Mr. Muir in the begin¬ 
ning of last winter: Received two letters from him from France, 
which witness produced. These letters were read by the Clerk of 
Court. They expressed Mr. Muir’s willingness to return home when¬ 
ever it should be necessary.t Never heard Mr. Muir attempt to 
excite the people to sedition or outrage: He exhorted them to avoid 
riotous conduct, to behave orderly and peaceably, and to attend to 
the moral character of those whom they admitted members: Knows 
that Mr. Muir’s opinion of Paine’s book was, that it might be danger¬ 
ous for people of weak minds. 

John Buchanan , baker, Edinburgh, has often heard Mr. Muir 
speak in societies in favour of Parliamentary Reform : Heard him 
recommend morals, peace, and good order, aud that all their applica¬ 
tions should be directed to Parliament in a constitutional manner. 
Mr. Muir used to say in conversation, that the Constitution ought 
to be to them the Polar star ; and they should begin reformation by 
first erecting among themselves the temple of morality: Does not 


* Our present Noble Premier, 
f Vide Letters themselves, Appendix. 


71 


remember of hearing him give any opinion on Paine's books: he 
always wished the people to have their minds informed. 

Captain W. Johnston , Edinburgh, never heard Mr. Muir harangue 
the people to excite sedition: Has heard him speak at several public 
meetings : Knows that the principles of Mr. Muir were for supporting 
the Constitution, and all the other principles held by him grew out 
of this one. While Mr. Muir was in France, witness received one 
or two letters from him on general subjects, in which Mr. Muir also 
mentioned his intention of returning home. 

Maurice Thomson y starchmaker, Edinburgh, once heard Mr. 
Muir, in a Society of the Friends of the People, deliver a speech about 
Reform: He recommended that their measures should be moderate 
and constitutional. 

Charles Salter , brewer in Edinburgh, has heard Mr. Muir speak 
in Societies three or four times : He exhorted them to Constitutional 
measures, peace, and good order; and declared, that if ever they did 
any thing unconstitutional, he would be tbe first man to oppose them. 

Peter Wood , teacher, Edinburgh, has heard the pannel speak in 
Societies, and impress upon them the necessity of petitioning the 
House of Commons: Never heard him speak against the King or 
House of Lords : Never saw him distribute any books or pamphlets : 
Heard him say, that no members should be admitted into the Society 
who were inclined to faction. 

David Dale , merchant, Glasgow, was present with Mr. Muir at 
meetings of the Friends of the People, in the Star Inn, Glasgow: 
Recollects a motion was made recommending political books, which 
Mr. Muir opposed, and said, that no political books should be recom¬ 
mended, as most of them partook too much of party spirit,—and that 
knowledge could only be acquired by general reading: Advised the 
people to inform themselves on both sides of the question: He also 
said, that it was only by calm and constitutional means that the people 
could gain their ends,—and that they had no other mode of obtaining 
it than by petitioning Parliament: Never heard him say any thing 
which had a tendency to excite sedition: He always advised the 
people to be quiet and orderly : Never knew of his distributing books, 
or recommending Paine’s works : He advised the Society to expel any 
member who behaved seditiously or disorderly, and declared, that he 
would absent himself if unconstitutional measures were adopted. 

Cross-examined by Lord Advocate , and asked if he recollected 
when Mr. Muir was first apprehended ? Witness answered, he could 
not tell precisely. Interrogated if he thought it was in the month of 
January, or in any of the succeeding months ? Witness answered, 
that he could not be positive—it might be about five or six months ago. 

Lord Advocate. “ You have a very short memory, Mr. Dale ?” 
Witness, “ I have, my Lord.” 

William Riddel , baker, Glasgow, was present at several meetings 
in Glasgow with Mr. Muir: Never heard him recommend any books 
or pamphlets—and never saw any disorder in the meetings of the 
Friends of the People. 


William Reid , bookseller, Glasgow, is a partner of the firm of 
Brash and Reid, booksellers, Glasgow: Had an accidental conversation 
with Mr. Muir, aud witness asked his opinion respecting the propriety 
of selling Paine’s Rights of Man : Mr. Muir dissuaded witness from 
selling it, and said, “ it was an improper book, and dangerous to 
weak minds.” 

Cross-examined by Lord Advocate . Mr. Muir gave witness this 
advice a few days before the Sheriff came to take precognition con¬ 
cerning the book. 

George Waddel, manufacturer in Glasgow, was at a meeting of 
the Friends of the People, in Glasgow, when a motion was made, 
recommending political books. Colonel M‘Leod and Mr. Muir, who 
were present, opposed the motion, and said, that every political book 
contained something good and something bad : Never heard Mr. 
Muir recommend any other books than Blackstone’s Commentaries on 
the Laws of England, and Etskine’s Institutes of the Laws of Scot¬ 
land. Mr. Muir continually advised moderate but firm measures, and 
said he would glory in having the table of the House of Commons 
covered with Petitions in favour of Reform: It was proposed by 
some members to address the French Convention on the success of 
the Revolution, but Mr. Muir opposed it. 

John Russell , merchant, Glasgow, sworn, and the usual question 
being put, “ If any person had instructed him what to say ?” He 
answered, none ; except to tell the truth. Being asked by the Court 
who instructed him so, he replied he could point out no person in 
particular, but that it was the general advice of all to whom he spoke. 
He was required to produce his summons as a witness, from which it 
appeared that he had only received it four days before the trial, and 
he was told by the Court that any person who spoke to him must 
have done so in the interval of these four days. And, therefore, that 
k was impossible he could forget all their names. The witness 
replied, that the general instruction to speak the truth was so common, 
that he could not remember at present any particular person who 
had given it. 

The Lord Advocate moved that the witness should be committed 
to prison for “ prevarication on oath !” 

Mr. Muir rose and attempted to speak in behalf of the witness, but 
he was interrupted by the Court, who commanded him to sit down,, 
as he had no right to interfere in the business. 

Lord Henderland gave his opinion. Every appearance, said his 
Lordship, was against the witness, who wished to conceal the truth. 
He merited punishment, and should be committed to prison. 

The rest of the Judges concurred with Lord Henderland ; and Mr. 
Russel was committed to prison for three weeks as guilty of conceal¬ 
ing the truth on oath ! I * 

John Brock , manufacturer, Glasgow, attended a meeting of the 
Friends of the People in the Star Inn, Glasgow, where he heard Mr. 

* See letter of explanation from Mr. Russel, Appendix. 


73 


Muir recommending good order and adherence to the Constitution. 
Mr. Muir declared, that if the people became riotous, he would leave 
them that moment: Has beard Mr. Muir speak of books of the law : 
Cannot remember any in particular, although he thinks he referred to 
the works of the great John Locke. 

Wm. Clydesdale , cabinet-maker, Glasgow: Witness never joined 
any Society of the Friends of the People, but is a member of a So¬ 
ciety in Glasgow for a Reform of the Boroughs. In December last, 
Mr. Muir visited that Society, and said that the Borough Reformers 
had made great exertions. He recommended to them perseverance, 
firmness, and peaceable measures—reprobated the idea of equality— 
and said that the division of property was chimerical, and could never 
take place. 

George Bell , manufacturer, Glasgow : Has heard Mr. Muir speak in 
the Society of the Friends of the People at Glasgow, and declare that 
no members should be admitted into the Society but such as acknow¬ 
ledged the King, Lords, and Commons: Never heard him speak 
against the Constitution: He only recommended such books in general 
as would inform their minds, and render them better members of 
society. 

Daniel M‘Arthur, master of the Grammar School, Glasgow, remem¬ 
bers to have had a conversation with Mr. Muir in the Coffee-room, at 
Glasgow, in September or October last: Saw Mr. Muir and another 
gentleman walking together. The gentleman having gone away, Mr. 
Muir came up to witness, and said that the person with whom he had 
been, was Chairman of the Society of the Friends of the People in 
Edinburgh. Witness said to Mr. Muir, “ Do you not think this is a 
wrong time to insist for Reform in Parliament ?” Mr. Muir answered, 
that he thought it a proper time, as the country enjoyed the blessings 
of peace, and that there was no comparison betwixt this country and 
France—that, in France, they had brought about a Revolution, but 
we wanted only a Reform. 

James M i Gibbon, Kincaid Bleachfield, was a member of the Re¬ 
form Society of Campsie : Has seen Mr. Muir there : Never heard him 
recommend any books, or speak against King, Lords, or Commons. 

Robert Hendrie , Kincaid, gave evidence to the same effect. 

The Lord Advocate said it was unnecessary for Mr. Muir to bring 
so many witnesses to prove the same thing. 

Mr. Muir replied, that he intended to bring witnesses from every 
part of the country where he had attended meetings for Reform, that 
he might clearly prove his innocency: He had only a few more wit¬ 
nesses to adduce. 

Wm. Orr, manufacturer, Paisley, stated, that Mr. Muir and Colonel 
Dalrymple came to Paisley, and with witness visited and addressed 
the different Societies of the Friends of the People there. Mr. Muir, 
in his speeches, inculcated a firm attachment to the King and Consti¬ 
tution : He recommended peace and regularity, and reprobated riot 
and sedition : He also exhorted the people to be steady, and to pursue 
their object by all legal means. After having gone through the dif- 


74 




ferent Societies, Mr. Muir, Colonel Dalrymple, and witness, went to 
Sinclair’s Inn, Paisley; and, in the course of private conversation, he 
heard Mr. Muir say nothing against the King and Constitution,- but 
heard him say that the King was the best of Princes. 

James Craig , manufacturer, Paisley, saw Mr. Muir in a Society at 
Paisley: Heard him say that the Constitution was a good one, and 
that the King was the friend and father of his people. 

James Richardson , merchant, Glasgow, is a member of the same 
Society of the Friends of the People in London, of which Mr. Grey is 
a member: Witness is not a member of any Society of the Friends of 
the People in Scotland: was present at a meeting of the Friends of 
the People in Glasgow, when he heard Mr. Muir exhort them to keep 
by the Constitution, and that if any of the members were against it, 
they should be expelled. Mr. Muir, in a very masterly manner, ex¬ 
posed the absurd idea of liberty and equality, as implying a division of 
property, and said that such a system was totally impracticable. 

Mr. Muir now stated that he had finished his proof iu exculpation : 
that it was in his power to adduce many more witnesses, but that he 
deemed it totally unnecessary. 

• The Lord Advocate rose and addressed the Jury nearly as follows : 

Gentlemen,—I now require your most serious consideration of what 
has passed. The pannel at the bar is the man, as I shall afterward 
show you, that has been sowing the seeds of discontent and sedition 
under the specious pretext of reform. He has appeared here before 
you, after having been fugitated in this country, and now by your ver¬ 
dict, from which there is no appeal, either his guilt must be fixed or 
extinguished. Gentlemen, This is the moment which I have long 
and anxiously looked for; and I declare, that in the range of my offi¬ 
cial capacity, among the persons whom I have brought to this bar, if 
there has been any one whose actions particularly pointed him out for 
prosecution, whose conduct appeared the most criminal, who has 
betrayed the greatest appearance of guilt, this is the man. 

Gentlemen, We all know the pernicious effects of the many in¬ 
stances of seditious writings and practices which have lately appeared 
in this country; and all those persons who have had the courage to 

come and stand a trial at this bar, have met with the same fate_they 

have all been found guilty. And I trust, that as the evidence has 
clearly unfolded the diabolical and mischievous conduct of this person, 
that he will receive a similar verdict. 

Gentlemen, I could not have conceived that a man, who has re¬ 
ceived a liberal education—who has practised as an advocate at this 
Bar, should be found, on any occasion, among ignorant villagers, and 
low manufacturers,* purposely to sow sedition among them. 

The charge against the pannel divides itself into three distinct heads, 
which, however, all centre in one general charge of exciting sedition. 

1st. That he circulated Paine’s Rights of Man, to speak of which I 

* Wlia't a libel on the nation!—by a man, too, whose family have sucked so 
many thousands of the public money! 


7 5 


think it unnecessary, after he himself considered this book u too dan¬ 
gerous to weak minds.” Yet he has wilfully circulated this book in 
such a manner, as proves that his intention was to overturn our happy 
Constitution. 

2dly. He has always been found, as I have stated, making seditious 
speeches and harangues among knots of ignorant labourers, and herds 
of poor manufacturers, whom, I am entitled to say, had it not been for 
him, would have remained peaceable and contented, and never thought 
of that incendiary Paine, nor of forming meetings, till he, like the 
demon of sedition, stirred them up by forming clubs. The very at* 
tempt was the same which, in another country, has produced so much 
anarchy and confusion, and which no government could allow. 

3dly. He was in a meeting, calling themselves a Convention of 
Delegates for obtaining Parliamentary Reform. Gentlemen, We all 
remember the transactions of last winter. It was then that sedition 
raised its hydra head, but which the spirit of this country crushed, 
and since that day has held in utter detestation. It was then that 
good men felt and trembled, and though some late circumstances may 
have given cause to suspect that discord is still endeavoured to be 
excited, I have not a doubt that you will by your verdict this day, 
show that you still entertain the same abhorrence of these practices. 
There, in that Convention—I shall call it by no other name—he, al¬ 
most alone, was found the supporter and defender of a paper—a paper 
penned by some infamous wretches, who have, like himself, fled from 
the punishment that awaited them—which came from a Society styling 
themselves United Irishmen,* and which, even in that convention, was 
considered dangerous. Yet this person was the ringleader, who in¬ 
sisted that it should be received and answered. 

These three heads resolve all into one charge—that of exciting dis¬ 
content, nay almost rebellion, against the Government;—that most 
dangerous kind of sedition, which, according to Judge Blackstone, is 
next to high treason. 

Gentlemen, In one thing I agree with the person at the bar, that 
this trial is of consequence to posterity. I grant that it is ; but whe¬ 
ther as it strikes him, you are this day to judge. It has been my 
wish to obtain, in this case, the verdict of such a respectable Jury as I 
now see. Gentlemen, You are to determine if sedition be a crime 

★ This tirade was levelled at Mr. Hamilton Itowan, a gentleman to whom we 
have already referred, and who might well stand a comparison with the Lord 
Advocate Dundas, either in regard to birth or fortune. Mr. Hamilton Rowan, 
on hearing that the above language was applied to him, instantly came over frona 
Ireland with his friend the Honourable Simon Butler, brother, we believe, of the 
Earl of Kilkenny, and demanded an explanation or apology from the Lord Advo¬ 
cate. But his Lordship would not come to the scratch, whereupon Mr. Hamilton 
Rowan posted him in the following terms :—“ The Lord Advocate of Scotland, 
Robert Dundas, having asserted on the trial of Thomas Muir, Esq., that an Ad¬ 
dress from the United Irishmen of Dublin to the Delegates for Reform in Scot¬ 
land, to which my name was affixed as Secretary, was penned by those infamous 
wretches, who, like himself, have fled from the punishment that awaited him ; 
and an explanation having been avoided, under the pretext of official duty, I find 
it now necessary to declare that such assertion of the Lord Advocate is a False¬ 
hood !! (Signed) A. H. Rowan. 

“ Dec. 17, 1793.” 


of such a horrid nature as I represent it ? I bring forward the arm of 
power to crush it, and which will be either invigorated or palsied by 
the verdict which you are to give. You will consider the conduct of 
the pannel, and then say whether it is such a conduct as in your 
minds ought to be passed over. 

Gentlemen, As the charge is of three kinds, the witnesses are 
also of three kinds: and if ever there was a respectable set of wit¬ 
nesses, whose evidence stands on the basis of truth, they are to be 
seen here : and in place of being contradicted by his witnesses, they 
are completely corroborated by them. 

Gentlemen, As to the charge of seditious speeches, we find him 
in different parts of the country exciting in the people a spirit of dis¬ 
affection to the lawful Government. There has he been recommending 
books to enlighten their minds, a measure in which, however, he has 
been very unsuccessful, if we may take Weddel, the learned vice- 
president of the Kirkintilloch Society, as an example of its effects. 

The evidence I chiefly rest upon here is Johnstone’s, and no evi¬ 
dence can be more distinct, connected, and clear. He and Freeland 
both agree, that the pannel spoke of the success of the French arms. 
What could be his motive for discoursing on this subject to such low, 
ignorant, and illiterate people ? Why talk to them of the burden of 
taxes, if he did not mean to light up the flame of discontent in the 
country ? Gentlemen, We may hope to live to see these burdens 
lightened, but you will not allow that person to proceed in his mode 
of doing it. The lessening of taxes, and payment of the national 
debt, are subjects which always engage the attention of the lower 
ranks of men, and you will judge the propriety of haranguing them 
on such popular topics. He told them, that if they were more equally 
represented, they would not be so heavily taxed, and that the bur¬ 
den of taxes prevented them from bringing their goods to market upon 
equal terms with the people of France. Could any measure be de¬ 
vised more calculated to produce discontent and sedition than this ? 
Had such societies existed before he came among them, the case 
would have been somewhat different; but he appears everywhere the 
ringleader. We find him with them on the Tuesday preceding the 
meeting, and conversing about it. He comes to the meeting, ha¬ 
rangues them, and then adjourns with a select party to Wallace’s. 
Can you desire any stronger proof of his being the main instrument 
and promoter of these dangerous meetings, than the clear, convincing, 
and connected evidence, I have laid before you ? 

Gentlemen, The circulating seditious books is the next charge I 
shall speak to. The passages selected from them, you will see in the 
indictment. The witness Freeland is again an evidence here. I must 
observe to you, that it appears extremely doubtful whether he told all 
that he knew. You might have seen by his face that he prevaricated ; 
and when closely questioned, the sweat broke upon him. He says 
he got Paines book out of Muir’s pocket. This is a mode of circu¬ 
lating a book which a man of his disposition would very naturally 
adopt. He did not go openly, but privately. You will judge of him 


77 


when you have compared his actions with his professions. Indeed 
every evidence goes to prove, that this wretch is tainted with sedition 
from head to foot, and more unworthy of the protection of the law 
than the meanest villain. 

The next witness I shall speak of is Anne Fisher; and though the 
pannel, by an expression which he made use of, has endeavoured to 
prejudice you against her, I dare say, Gentlemen, you will agree with 
me, that her evidence is correct, well founded, stands on the basis of 
truth, and is corroborated by the evidence of others.* She was repeat¬ 
edly sent to purchase Paine’s book, and she mentions the persons for 
whom she bought it. She was sent from her master’s house, the 
pannel’s father, who I am informed is a respectable citizen; but I do 
not mean to attach any criminality to him. That person at the bar 
has the miserable reflection of having himself imbittered the lives of 
his unfortunate parents. There in his father’s shop, did he harangue 
all the poor ignorant country people, and persuaded them to lay out 
their miserable sixpence to purchase the Rights of Man. There was 
he always found in the back shop reading seditious publications. In 
that den of sedition he sat like a spider spinning his filthy web to 
entrap the unwary. The witness names the persons for whom she 
purchased Paine’s book. One of those persons she condescends upon, 
is the uncle of that unfortunate wretch at the bar. But I decline 
bringing the uncle as an evidence against the nephew. 

Wilson likewise corroborates the evidence of Anne Fisher, when he 
depones, that he was advised to keep a copy of Paine’s book in his 
shop, because “ it would enlighten his customers, for that it refuted 
Mr. Burke entirely.” What! he confuted Mr. Burke!—a man whose 
wonderful talents—astonishing genius, and sublime efforts, have lately 
been so nobly exerted in the defence of our glorious Constitution !— 
Gentlemen, you have now only to read the passages quoted from that 
book in the indictment, and if you are loyal to your king—if you love 
your country, and are desirous to preserve it, you will return a verdict 
against this man, who has dared to recommend that wretched outcast 
and his writings—works which I never read till my official situation 
obliged me to it. But I need not tell you my opinion of this book, since- 
the whole country holds it in detestation. (Here the Lord Advocate 
read some passages from the indictment.) 

Now, Gentlemen, when he approves of sentiments such as these, 
what signifies all his evidence of attachment to the King and Consti¬ 
tution ? We are told, indeed, by one of his witnesses, that he advised 
him not to sell Paine’s book; but when closely questioned upon his 
cross-examination, it unfortunately turns out that this was from a sense 
of danger, not from real sentiment—it happened, you will remember, 
Gentlemen, about the time that the Sheriff came to inquire about this 
book. 

Gentlemen, it even appears from the evidence of Fisher, that the 


* This witness, so much lauded by the Court and Prosecutor, became a common 
strumpet , and died like the vilest of the vile. 


78 


poor organist could not pass the door of this demon of mischief, hut 
he must be stopped to play Ca Ira —a tune which is made use of in 
that unhappy country France, as a signal for blood and carnage. It 
may be said that the evidence of this girl is somewhat contradicted by 
that of the pannel’s friend old Barclay the elder. But you will recol¬ 
lect the salvo* that this witness chose to introduce when he took the 
oath—that did not look well. 

I am now advanced to the third charge of the indictment, which 
relates to the pannel’s proceedings in that “ Convention of Delegates,” 
as they styled themselves. It is clearly proved that in that place, 
he read, approved of, and defended the Irish Address. But, Gentle¬ 
men, you will not approve of such a paper, nor disregard such a con¬ 
vincing proof of his guilt—nor will you, were his abilities ever so 
great, or his views ever so comprehensive, permit that person to set 
up his daring and seditious opinions, in opposition to the excellent 
Government of this country. Indeed, his actions in some instances 
appear tinctured with madness-—and were it not that we find him every 
where a determined enemy and ringleader in a horrid scheme of sedi¬ 
tion against our happy Constitution, it would be impossible to tell 
whether his conduct was marked more with wickedness or insanity. 

Gentlemen, Having finished my remarks upon the evidence—an 
evidence which I am convinced must appear to you incontestible, there 
remains only two topics on which I must beg to make a few observa¬ 
tions. The pannel has said that he left this country on business of 
importance—that he was unwillingly detained in France—and that he 
always wished to come forward to this trial. But we shall soon see 
how this corresponds with facts. I should have made no objection to 
his proving this. It would have argued some degree of honour. But 
these false assertions are all clearly refuted, and I will make it appear 
that he fled from this country under the impression of guilt—and now 
he is returned to be again the past of Scotland, with the same diabo¬ 
lical intention as before—But, Gentlemen, what was the reason of his 
going to France ? I was never more surprised at any thing than the 
evidence of Skirving, when he told us that the pannel was sent to 
France by persons styling themselves the Friends of the People, because 
it was believed he might have influence in saving the life of the King of 
France.t Did the witness know—did he recollect that he was at that 
time accusing the pannel of high treason ? But why were these people 
so much interested in averting this event ? The witness has informed 
us. It was thought such an event would hurt their common cause. 
What cause ? The design of overthrowing the Government of this 
country. There then, he stands an ambassador from a Society in this 
country to France, a circumstance which greatly heightens his guilt. 

Gentlemen, I have postponed this trial much longer than 1 ought 
to have done, because I was willing to give the pannel every opportu- 

* After uttering the words of the oath, “to tell the truth so far as you know,” 
the witness properly added, “ and can recollect.”—This was the “ salvo” to which 
the Lord Advocate alluded. 

f See explanation of this in a letter of Skirving, Appendix. 


79 


nity of returning, and I inserted the adjournment in the public papers 
in the expectation that it might find him while roaming through the 
world. Observe the shipmaster’s receipt—it is dated the 16th of 
May—what became of him all the time from that date, till the 31st 
of July, when be was apprehended ? Nobody was informed of his 
intention of returning. How unlucky that not one solitary letter 
was wafted by the winds, or impelled by the waves, to his friends 
here, and inserted in the Edinburgh Gazetteer, or Caledonian Mer¬ 
cury, to give notice of what he says was his earnest wish ; but the 
very reverse of this was the case. By his father’s letter we find him 
in Ireland, and who knows how he was employed there ? We know 
nothing of him all this time, except what we may discover from the 
diploma of the respectable Society of United Irishmen. 

Gentlemen, You may know a man by the company he keeps. 
Among his papers there is a letter addressed to the Rev. T. Fyshe 
Palmer; a man who in a few days is to be tried at Perth. The seal 
of that letter is remarkable. It is a Cap of Liberty on a Spear, and 
under it is the motto Ca Ira. You see, Gentlemen, the pannel returns 
to this country with all the insignia of sedition about him. 

Gentlemen, I beg your attention to a passage which I shall read to 
you from a celebrated French author. We will see what was his 
opinion of the British Constitution. (Here the Lord Advocate read 
a very long quotation from De Lolme on the British Constitution, 
from the middle of page 554 to the end of the book.) 

Gentlemen, You have heard what a foreigner has said of our 
glorious Constitution, and you must be sensible how carefully we 
ought to preserve it. I trust you will view this case in the same 
light as I do. You will protect your King from the attacks of his 
enemies, and you will guard this temple of freedom from all the 
attempts of the factious. You will not allow it to be violated 
by that person at the bar; and you will now, Gentlemen, prevent his 
attempts in future ; and I conjure you to do justice to your country, 
and honour to yourselves, by returning such a verdict as shall stop 
that man in his mad career, who has been sowing sedition in every 
corner with so liberal a hand. 

Mr. Muir addressed the Jury nearly as follows : 

Gentlemen of the Jury ,—I now rise in my own defence. I have 
long looked forward with joyful expectation to this day. All that 
malice could devise—all that slander could circulate, has been directed 
against me. Gentlemen, I speak with pride and triumph. After an 
inquisition, perhaps unexampled in the history of this country, my 
moral character stands secure and unimpeached. Upon my public 
conduct I regarded that inquisition with scorn and in silence. With 
the paid and anonymous assassins of public reputation—with such 
mean and worthless adversaries, I disdained to enter the lists. I reserved 
my vindication to this day, when before you, in the face of Scotland, 
I should manifest my innocency. Gentlemen, I supplicate no favour. 
I demand justice. You are bound to grant it. I shall not imitate the 


80 


example of the Public Prosecutor, who has just finished his pleading. 
Sounding and unsubstantial declamation is unsuitable for you—it is 
unworthy of me. This is not the time to temporize. The eyes of 
this country are fixed upon us both. The records of this trial will 
pass down to posterity. And, Gentlemen, when our ashes shall be 
scattered by the winds of heaven, the impartial voice of future times 
will rejudge your verdict. In the meantime, let faction rage—let the 
spirit of party in the present hour proudly domineer—the illusion will 
soon vanish away. In solitude, the power of recollection will assume 
its influence—and then, Gentlemen, it will be material to you to con¬ 
sider whether or not you have acted uprightly, or sinned against your 
own eternal conscience, in my acquittal, or in my condemnation. Gen¬ 
tlemen, there are two circumstances which have been strongly insisted 
upon by the Public Prosecutor, though they have little or no connex¬ 
ion with the general nature of the evidence he has adduced. I shall 
take some notice of these circumstances here, before I enter into a 
particular vindication of my conduct. Long, indeed, has he harangued 
upon them, and has exhibited them in every form his imagination 
could suggest. He maintains, that, after I had been examined by a 
Magistrate, after an information had been filed against me, I fled from 
this country, conscious of my guilt 1 Gentlemen, I admit the fact of 
my departure. But, in those days, in these circumstances, can it be 
ascribed only to conscious guilt? When the whole strength of arbi¬ 
trary power is exerted against one individual, would it be commend¬ 
able in him to expose himself as a sacrifice, when his sufferings might 
be of no service to his country, and would only present posterity with 
an addition to the vast catalogue of the victims of despotism ? If 
there are only two motives to which you can assign my departure, 
you are bound in justice to ascribe it to the most charitable. But do 
the circumstances attending my departure bear any resemblance to a 
flight ?—Did I not publicly announce it the preceding evening in a 
numerous meeting of citizens ?—Did I not cause it to be published in 
a newspaper?—Did I affect the garb of concealment?—When in 
London did I remain in obscurity ?-—Did I not appear in a distin¬ 
guished Society—the Society of the Friends of the People ?—And 
did not that Society afterwards publish a resolution, announcing in 
its preamble my appearance among them ? 

But why did I go immediately to France? In Mr. Skirving’s evi¬ 
dence respecting a letter he received from me before I left London, he 
has said that I proposed to go to Paris, as it was the advice of some 
friends I might be of some service in mitigating the fate of the late 
King of France. The words of Mr. Skirving, “ some friends” have 
been ingeniously represented to be members of that truly respectable 
Society; and it is boldly argued that I went as a missionary from that 
body. Nothing can be more injurious: I am sorry that Mr. Skirving 
has not been able to produce the letter alluded to *—it would have 
clearly demonstrated the falsehood of the assertion. But Mr. Skirving 

* See letter of explanation from Mr. Skirving, Appendix. 


81 


never said so ! No person can or dare say, that I went as a missionary 
to a foreign power, or even received any delegation either from indi¬ 
viduals or from any Society whatever. Building, then, upon this 
unsubstantial basis of words, never uttered in evidence by Mr. Skirving, 
I am accused of a species of “ high treason,” in being a missionary to a 
foreign power without any legal authority from this country. The 
charge is equally ridiculous with the misrepresentation on which it is 
founded Let it, however, be considered as serious,—I dare the proof, 
—I challenge the Prosecutor to adduce the smallest vestige of evidence 
in support of it. 

Gentlemen, I admit I wrote to Mr. Skirving of my intention of 
going to France—nor will I deny the motive. 1 saw in the execution 
of the late King a specious pretext for plunging the country into a war, 
and for extending the effusion of human blood to every corner of the 
world. 1 may have erred; I may have acted from enthusiasm ; but 
it was an enthusiasm in the cause of man. If at the period when it 
was free for every person to publish their sentiments upon that awful 
occasion, is it to be imputed to me as a crime that I wished likewise 
to publish mine ? Has not the Prosecutor lamented that disastrous 
event, and will he not excuse a man who wanted to prevent it ? who 
with many friends to humanity of every nation, and of every party, in 
private, and in public, in conversation, and from the press, exerted 
their abilities to ward it off, because they considered it pregnant 
with evil to this country, and foresaw that it would introduce years 
of blood and of sorrow ? 

It is said that my departure from Scotland, and my journey to Paris, 
are circumstances which afford some presumption of guilt. But, Gen¬ 
tlemen, that presumption is now done away ,—I have returned. 

Gentlemen, The Public Prosecutor has boasted that he delayed the 
trial to give me an opportunity of returning—that he postponed it for 
some weeks and advertised it in the public papers, which he supposed 
would find me “ roaming in some part of the world.” But was he 
ignorant that hostilities were at that time commencing, and that it was 
tedious and difficult to procure passports ? Of that difficulty surely 
every person here is convinced. 

All my private letters which have this day been read, prove my 
uneasiness on account of the delay, and my anxiety to return. But 
before I procured any passport, hostilities had commenced between 
this country and France—the flames of war were blazing over Europe. 
There were only two ways by which I could return home,—the first 
by the way of Hamburgh—the second by the longer, but more certain 
circuit of America. The latter course appeared more safe, and less 
liable to interruption. I therefore adopted it—I left Paris—I arrived 
at Havre de Grace, and found a vessel there bound for New York. 
The receipt from the master of that vessel for, the payment of my 
passage, which was found in my pocket-book when I was stopped on 
my landing in Scotland, proves that I had actually taken my passage. 
This vessel, however, was detained almost three months by taking on 
hoard her cargo, and by an embargo, which was at that time laid on all 

F 


82 


neutral vessels in the ports of France. In the interval another Ameri¬ 
can vessel, the Hope, of Baltimore, arrived, which was to touch at Bel¬ 
fast for a part of her cargo before she returned to America. This 
appeared to me a fortunate circumstance, and 1 immediately adopted 
the plan of returning to Scotland by the way of Ireland ;—not to sup¬ 
plicate favour—not to implore protection,—but to demand justice. 

After a short passage I was landed in Ireland, but I remained there 
only three days. I did not conceal my name. I appeared in all the 
places of public resort—to all I announced my situation and inten¬ 
tions. But it is said there have been insurrections in that country, 
and the Prosecutor insinuates that the “ demon of sedition,” as he 
calls me, was probably the cause of these insurrections. Gentlemen, 
I smile at the ridiculous accusation. It might have been easy for me, 
by the testimony of my friends in Ireland, whom I love and honour, 
to have proved how I spent every hour of my time. I could have 
made it appear, that I associated with a few friends who were chiefly 
engaged in literary pursuits. 

Gentlemen, The Prosecutor has said I came from Ireland to Scot¬ 
land in “ a private and clandestine manner,” and his composition, the 
Indictment, contains the same injurious assertion. Now, Gentlemen, 
I am extremely sorry that the respectable Magistrate, Mr. Ross, at 
Stranraer, is not here. In the list of witnesses adduced against me I 
saw his name, and the name of Carmichael, the person who first re¬ 
cognised me on my landing at Portpatrick. I therefore expected to 
have found them both inclosed with the witnesses for the Crown; 
and I would have adduced them to prove, that so far from concealing 
myself, I announced myself publicly and without disguise. But the 
conduct of the Public Prosecutor is uniformlymarked with disingenuity. 
When he served upon me, in the list of the witnesses for the Crown, 
the names of Carmichael and Ross, I could not entertain the least 
doubt but that they were to be adduced. This, however, seems to 
have been an art to prevent me citing them at my own instance. It 
has succeeded, and I am now precluded from the benefit of their 
testimony. But why did not the Prosecutor at least produce the 
declaration which I made before the Magistrates at Stranraer ? That 
declaration would have proved, that I did not come into this country 
in a clandestine manner. And as much invective has been founded 
upon my coming into Scotland in a clandestine manner, as it is charged 
as a circumstance of aggravation against me in the Indictment, you 
will judge of the rectitude of the Prosecutor’s conduct in thus declaim¬ 
ing upon a fact which he shrinks from proving , and which his artful 
contrivance prevents me from disproving. 

Gentlemen, You are now, I trust, convinced that no “ conscious¬ 
ness of guilt ” led me from Scotland ;—that no improper motive carried 
me from England to France; and no deep and secret intention in¬ 
duced me to return in disguise to my native country. Gentlemen, I 
have already stated to you, that the object of that return was to 
demand justice^ to wipe away the imputation of the crime of which 
I am now charged. And what, I ask, is that crime ? It is sedition 


83 


—a term the most vague and undefined,—a term familiar to power— 
familiar to corruption,—a term which has been applied in one age to 
men rejected by society, but whose names were honoured by after 
times, and upon whose virtues and sufferings, in the succeeding age, 
the pillar of the Constitution was erected. Gentlemen, the records 
of history—the monuments of former ages—the annals of the present 
period—all attest that this crime of sedition is of the most ambiguous 
complexion. Those who have dared to oppose arbitrary power, who 
have ventured to stem the tide of corruption, or to come forward in 
the hour of danger, and to save their country, have been branded with 
this epithet. The term, in fact, is no longer injurious. Experience 
will make you to connect along with it no prejudices. You will 
scrutinize the idea; you will investigate the fact combined with the 
intention. And, Gentlemen, let us proceed to that investigation. 
Tell me where the smallest vestige of sedition has appeared ? Has 
property been invaded ? Has the murderer walked your streets ? Has 
the blood of the citizens flowed ? O no ! But it is said, although the 
effects of sedition have not taken place, the attempt was meditated ! ! 

Gentlemen, The Prosecutor has talked of the danger the people of 
this country were in last winter—of the deep-laid plots and treason¬ 
able conspiracies of the Friends of the People ! And I am the man 
whom he charges as the author of the whole,—whom he represents 
as similar in malignity to the demon of mischief, and whom he 
honours with the title of the “ pest of Scotland!” Well, then, let it 
be supposed that an attempt was formed to overthrow the Constitu¬ 
tion, to kindle the torch of civil war, and to lead rapine through the 
land; where, I ask, has the proof of this design been found ? 

Gentlemen, Every thing has been explored. An inquisition, unknown 
even in Spain, has been carried on. Every thing transacted within 
the walls of private families has been industriously inquired into; and 
to prove this mighty crime which is to convulse the State—which is 
to tear the Constitution from its basis—the principal witnesses are a 
true and respectable scullion girl, and a hairdresser, who cannot 
speak to actions but to words! I have addressed numerous 
Societies—the doors were open. We disdained concealment, for 
our intentions were pure. Could not some ruffian be procured 
who could at least give a manly testimony to our “ atrocious ” 
purposes? But to adduce a girl, and a hairdresser, the domestics 
of a private family, to prove a crime which required the co-opera¬ 
tion of many thousands of bearded men, while it excites the frown, 
must likewise call forth the smile of contempt, from the just and 
the impartial. But let us be candid.—Let us advance upon fair 
and open ground.—Let us throw away miserable pretexts. If stand¬ 
ing forward for an equal representation of the people in the House of 
Commons, is the impelling motive of this prosecution, (and I judge it 
is,) let it be acknowledged. I shall give little trouble. I will plead 
guilty to the charge. I will save you, Gentlemen of the Jury, the 
wretched mockery of condemning a man for a trifle, while the principal 
cause of condemnation cannot be declared, and must be concealed. 


84 


Yes, Gentlemen, I plead guilty. I tell you that I openly, actively, 
and sincerely embarked in the cause of a Parliamentary Reform, in the 
vindication and in the restoration of the Rights of the People. Nor do I 
hesitate to unfold to you my motives—they are supported by their own 
intrinsic strength, and they are sanctioned by the great and venerable 
names of the living and of the dead. Gentlemen, I have boldly con¬ 
tended for an equal representation of the people, in what I shall ever 
call the House of the People, because I consider it to be a measure 
essentially necessary to the salvation of the State, and to the stability 
of our boasted Constitution. Gentlemen, I ask in what consists the 
excellency of that time-tried fabric, cemented by the blood of your 
fathers, flowing from the field and from the scaffold ? I will tell you : 
It consists in the just balance of the three great impelling powers 
of King, Lords, and Commons. If one of these powers lose its vigour, 
the efficacy of the Constitution is proportionably impaired—if one of 
these is absorbed by another, the Constitution is annihilated. Is it 
not known to you, and acknowledged by all the world, that the popular 
branch of our Constitution has suffered the ravages of time and of 
corruption? The fact is indisputable. The representation of the 
people is not what it once was, and is not such, as I trust in God, 
one day it shall be. And, Gentlemen, no enmity to his country 
can surely be said to influence the conduct of that man who sounds 
alarm when the Constitution is in danger—who summons all who may 
be concerned in its reparation, and labours to preserve it, by endea¬ 
vouring to restore it, to its original purity. 

Such, Gentlemen, are the motives which have influenced my con¬ 
duct. If you find me guilty, you implicate in my condemnation, men, 
who now enjoy the repose of eternity, and to whose memories a grate¬ 
ful posterity has erected statuses. I have been doing what has been 
done by the first characters of the nation. I shall not at this time 
repeat all the venerable catalogue. But is any one ignorant of the 
illustrious Locke, whose treatise on Government is written in the 
irresistible language of reason and of truth, and who supported by 
philosophy the cause of liberty and of man. Was not he the friend of 
the British Constitution ? Yet he was an advocate for a Reform in 
Parliament, for a more equal representation of the people in the House 
of Commons. Will you, therefore, tear the records of his fame—will 
you stigmatise his memory, and brand him with the name of Sedition ? 

Let us rapidly proceed down to modern times.—Let us pass 
over in silence many illustrious names, whose memories, with that of 
the Constitution, will perish together.—Let us come to our own days. 
Gentlemen, are ye ignorant of Blackstone, the man who first col¬ 
lected the laws of his country from the deformed chaos into which 
they had been thrown, who arranged them with elegancy, and adorned 
them with every flower which the classic field could produce ? Are 
not the volumes of this revered Judge in the hands of all ? And has 
not Blackstone, not with the levity of ill pondered words—not in the 
private hour of relaxation—not in the heat of popular debate, but in 
the calmness and solitude of study—maintained the same propositions 


85 


which I maintain—been guilty of the same sedition of which I ani 
guilty, when he pronounced that the Constitution was imperfect in its 
popular branch, and that if any alteration was necessary, it was 
there to be desired. 

But, Gentlemen, I shall not refer to writers who are now no more, 
and who are beyond the reach of punishment. Vengeance ceases 
in the grave. There factions and parties cannot rage—But if I 
have been guilty of a crime, I shall not claim the protection of the 
dead. I shall not wander among the tombs supplicating the assistance 
of those who cannot hear me. I have the greatest living characters on 
my side—men high in rank and power—who enjoy the confidence of 
the King, and are admitted into the bosom of his Counsels. Why, 
Gentlemen, the Prime Minister of the country, Wm. Pitt, and the 
Commander-in-Chief of the army, the Duke of Richmond, have both 
been strenuous advocates of Reform. Are they not then criminal as 
I am ? It can never be forgotten, that, in the year 1782, Mr. Pitt 
was tainted with sedition by proposing a Reform in the House of 
Commons. Did he not advise the people to form themselves into 
Societies ?—and did he not encourage them by his example, and coun¬ 
tenance them with his presence ? Beware, then, how you condemn 
me; for at the same time you must condemn the confidential servant 
of his Majesty, who was in the year 1782, what I am in the year 
1793— a Reformer. 

Gentlemen, You will further remember, that, in the year 1782, the 
Duke of Richmond was a flaming advocate for the right of Universal 
Suffrage. He presided in Societies; and, like Mr. Pitt, advised the 
formation of such Societies all over the kingdom. Has guilt, then, 
nothing permanent in its nature—does it change with times, and sea¬ 
sons, and circumstances ? Shall the conduct which was deemed 
patriotic in 1782, be condemned as criminal in 1793? 

I have been honoured with the title of the “ Pest of Scotland 
but if similar offences merit similar epithets, the same title must like¬ 
wise be bestowed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Com¬ 
mander of his Majesty’s Forces. (Here Mr. Muir turned to the Lord 
Advocate, and, in a strain of bold and cutting eloquence, exclaimed)— 
And pray, my Lord, what term of super-eminent distinction will you> 
the Public Prosecutor, the Lord Advocate of Scotland, claim for 
yourself ? You also tvere, not many months ago, a Reformer. You 
contended for a more equal representation of the people in the House 
of Commons. You were one of those men who, for that purpose, 
lately assembled in this city, in what they called a Convention , and 
assumed to themselves the title of Delegates from the Counties; and 
you were then employed in framing a Bill for extending the Elective 
Franchise ! Why, my Lord, in accusing me, you charge yourself with 
sedition—every charge in your Indictment against me, recoils upon 
yourself. If it was lawful for you and your friends to meet in Socie¬ 
ties and Conventions, for the purpose of obtaining Reform, it cannot 
surely be illegal in me and my friends to meet, and to act on the same 
principle. 


86 


I shall not, however, Gentlemen, detain you longer on this point ; 
although my assertions are founded in truth, and my reasoning is just, 
yet the subject is too ridiculous to be dwelt upon in this man’s trial. 

Gentlemen, The first charge in the Indictment is, that I was con¬ 
cerned in convening meetings of the people, at which I made seditious 
speeches and harangues, vilifying the King and Constitution, &c. 

Now, Gentlemen, the first witness adduced in support of this charge 
is Alexander Johnstone. You will remember the objection I stated 
to this witness, and which I could have supported by respectable wit¬ 
nesses, if I had been allowed. But what does Johnstone prove against 
me? (Here Mr. Muir, from his notes, read Johnstone’s evidence.) 
The witness says I stated the imperfection of the representation, from 
Burghs being rotten, and other places having no vote. And do you 
call this sedition ? The witness swore he heard me say, that if a man 
threw away £20,000 to procure a seat in Parliament, he surely had 
some interest in it. And can it be supposed that any man in his 
senses would give such a sum for a seat in Parliament without having 
some sinister view ? In no proposition of Euclid is the conclusion 
more demonstrable than the inference which I drew from this undenia¬ 
ble fact. It may be said that this has been done from ambition—from 
a man’s desire of exercising great talents for the benefit of his country, 
or of displaying his eloquence to the world; but have we not seen it 
done as often by the man who never said a word within the walls of 
the House besides aye , or no , as well as by the splendid orator ? And 
have we not seen it practised by the cool and cautious speculator, who 
never lays out his money without calculating on a profitable return ? 
Bribery at elections has for a long time been sapping the foundation 
of liberty, and ruining the morals of the people. The most flagrant 
instances of its baneful influence stand recorded on the journals of the 
House of Commons;* and is it not an evil which the corrupt cannot 
deny, and which good men have always endeavoured to redress? 
The witness depones that I said the Duke of Richmond had got 
£20,000, or £30,000, put into his pocket—and what though I said 
so ? I again say that that was the salutary opiate which calmed and 
cooled the fever of his brain, and probably saved him the mortification 
of standing his trial also for the crime of sedition. But, Gentlemen, 
this has no concern with the question at issue. It is not the Duke 
of Richmond, but the King himself, that I am accused of vilifying. 

Allow me, Gentlemen, before I proceed farther, to make one remark. 
If you do not consider all the circumstances under which such words 
were spoken, and even the manner in which they were uttered, you 
may attach to them a meaning which the speaker never intended— 
you may torture them into guilt, or explain them into innocence. 

Gentlemen, With regard to what was said about France_is it not 

notorious that the representation of the people in France is more equal, 
and the taxes less, than in this country ? Are incontrovertible truths 

* Just think of the recent case of Liverpool, where upwards of £ 80 ,COO have 
been expended by Messrs. Ewart & Dennison ! 


87 


to be construed into a libel ? But who ever heard before that it was 
unlawful to compare the British Constitution with that of another 
country ? If the British Constitution is the boast of ages, the pride 
and glory of the world, can it suffer by any comparison ? No, Gen¬ 
tlemen. 

As to Paine’s book—the witness does not say that I recommended 
it—he says that I did not recommend any particular book, but reading 
in general—and he has not been able to prove one single unconstitu¬ 
tional expression. Now, Gentlemen, when I recommended general 
reading, I advised the people to communicate among themselves the 
knowledge which they might have possessed, I gave them good advice, 
and such as I should repeat, were I again in the same situation. And 
will I be condemned for so doing ? Is the time come when the mind 
must be locked up, and fetters imposed on the understanding ? And 
are the people to be precluded from that information and knowledge 
in which others are so materially concerned ? Oh, unhappy country ! 
Miserable people ! the remembrance of former liberties will only make 
you more wretched. Extinguish, then, if you can, the light of heaven, 
and let us grope, and search for consolation, if it can be found under 
the darkness which will soon cover us. But, Gentlemen, the prospect 
before us is not so dismal. We live and we act under the British 
Constitution—a Constitution which, in its genuine principles, has for 
ages consecrated freedom. We live, and we remember the glorious 
Revolution of 1688, which banished despotism, and placed the family 
of Hanover on the throne. We remember the Bill of Rights—nor 
shall we forget one of its most sacred clauses, which declared, esta¬ 
blished, and sanctioned, the inalienable claim of the Citizen to petition 
Parliament. If, then, you condemn me for advising people to inform 
themselves, and to diffuse the knowledge obtained by that information 
to others, and then calmly and deliberately to petition Parliament, you 
not only condemn me, but you trample upon the liberties of the people, 
and you proscribe the Constitution. 

Gentlemen, The advice I gave, I repeat, I shall always consider to 
be good advice—my motives were pure. I did not enlist myself under 
the banners of a faction. I combatted neither the Ministry nor the 
Opposition—neither the Inns or the Outs. I fought in the cause of 
truth—and how is that cause to be successful, but by general, com¬ 
plete, and impartial information of the different arguments advanced 
upon either side of the great question of Parliamentary Reform ? 

The witness swears, that I said the Constitution ought to consist of 
King, Lords, and Commons. Is this vilifying the Monarchy? Is this 
representing that part of the Government as expensive and cumber¬ 
some, as the Indictment accuses me? Is this “ inflaming the minds 
of the people,” and “ exciting them to insurrection and rebellion ?” 

The witness further says that the meeting was principally composed 
of young Weavers, from 18 to 21 years of age. I blush to mention 
the inference which the Lord Advocate has drawn from this, that 
people in that situation of life, and of that age, have no right to con¬ 
cern themselves in public affairs ! People in that situation ! Why, 


88 


Gentlemen, instead of sneering at them, it would have been more 
becoming in the Lord Advocate to have said that they are in the 
<k situation” of those who compose the great mass of society,—who 
support the Government by their industry, and who fight the battles 
of their country. And what age?—That period of life when the 
heart is uncorrupted, when the soil is best prepared to receive the 
good seed, and when the mind is most susceptible of the impressions 
of virtue and humanity. Must the members of that Society be held 
up to derision, because the majority was composed of Weavers—and 
because they might be principally young men ? Must they be cen¬ 
sured for interesting themselves in the welfare of that country in which 
they were to spend the remainder of their days ? And must they not 
presume to inquire into the nature of that Constitution in the opera¬ 
tion of which the happiness of their future lives is so materially con¬ 
cerned ? Gentlemen, You will remember that this witness stated that 
I recommended peace and regularity,—that I told them there was no 
other way of procuring redress, but by an application to Parliament; 
—that I advised them to receive no immoral characters as members— 
and you will judge how far such advice accords with the criminal 
charges of the Indictment. 

The next witness is Robert Wad del, Vice-President of the Kirkin¬ 
tilloch Society. From his examination there appears no proof of 
criminality, not the most slight indication of guilt. It is to be 
observed, that he depones to circumstances which occurred in the 
same meeting, at which the former witness was present; they, how¬ 
ever, do not agree respecting my general conduct. I am accused of 
vilifying the King and Constitution ;—and what does this witness 
say ?—that I made a speech, in which I advised regularity in their 
proceedings, and that they ought to proceed in a constitutional man¬ 
ner, as the law now is, by King, Lords, and Commons. This indict¬ 
ment alleges, that I reprobated the monarchial branch of the Consti¬ 
tution. But the witness swears that I said nothing about the expense 
of the King, nor the comparative expense of the French Constitution, 
nor the success of their arms. Gentlemen, I speak with candour : it 
is not in my remembrance that I spoke concerning the comparative 
excellency of the French and British Constituions. You hear one 
witness declaring that I merely compared them together ; you hear 
this witness declare, that I made no mention of either Constitution. 
Both of them may have spoken truth, according to the impression on 
their.minds ; but they shew you the danger of trusting to the memory 
of witnesses, when it relates to words spoken in the warmth of a 
public discussion, and attempted to be recollected after the lapse of 
many months. But give whatsoever degree of strength you choose 
to Johnston’s evidence,—draw from the comparison which you may 
assume, I instituted, between the French and British Constitution, I 
say, draw from it an inference as highly criminal as you possibly can, 
still the testimony of that man is completely overthrown by this wit¬ 
ness. Mr. Waddel has stated to you what passed after the meeting 
was over, in private company, in the unguarded hour, when the mind 


89 


dreads no danger, and when vigilance is asleep. Can any thing prove 
more strongly than the deposition of this man, the innocency of my 
( conduct ? The conversation related to politics and to new publica¬ 
tions, and he remembers me speaking of Flower on the French Con¬ 
stitution, which, though not mentioned in the indictment, you will 
recollect the Lord Advocate wished to bring forward as seditious, and 
as a circumstance “ tending to prove the crime charged.” I am not 
acquainted with the respextable author of that book ; but if, from 
writing, a true idea may be formed of the heart, there is not a man 
that I would more fondly call my friend. If any one wish for a 
Reform in Parliament, let him read and weigh well the lessons which 
Mr. Flower has inculcated, Gentlemen, the witness next depones, 
that I recommended Henry’s History of England. And so, I am 
called an enemy to the Constitution, because I recommended to the 
people the book best calculated to instruct them in its principles and 
progress,—a book which was warmly recommended by the great 
Earl of Mansfield, who first brought it into notice, and procured the 
author a pension from the King! 

This witness, you will recollect, was asked by the Solicitor-Gene¬ 
ral, what he meant by a more equal representation ? He stopped for 
a moment to consider. Oh ! what a matter of triumph was this !— 
then burst the contemptuous sneer from the other side ; and then, 
with affected ridicule, was pointed out the absurdity of men, so igno¬ 
rant, embarking in the cause of Reform, when even their Vice-Presi¬ 
dent, if any had known, should have been the man. Why, Gentle¬ 
men, by all, excepting Mr. Pitt and the Duke of Richmond, who 
contended for Reform,—and in all that was said in the late debate in 
the House of Commons,—no specific plan was actually brought for¬ 
ward. Is it then a matter of surprise, that the witness, who is 
certainly as much entitled to become a Reformer as the Lord Advo¬ 
cate, stopt for a moment to consider his answer to the question ? But, 
Gentlemen, his answer was such as did honour to the coolness of his 
mind, and to the soundness of his understanding. Two opinions, 
replied he, divided the Society: one was for confining the right of 
voting to landed property, the other, for every man having a vote ; 
but he had not made up his mind upon either. He declared at the 
same time, that I did not give any opinion on this subject. 

Gentlemen, I shall not at this time say much with regard to the 
very Rev. gentleman who was next called as a witness, as I intend to 
bring a criminal prosecution against him. My objections to his ad¬ 
missibility were sustained, before I entered upon the threshold of my 
proof, by the Lord Advocate’s wisely giving him up. I am sorry for 
the Prosecutor’s timely precaution ;—it prevented me from bringing a 
cloud of witnesses against this gentlemen, to prove practices, nay 

crimes, which - but I shall go no farther at present,—my most 

rancorous enemy was aware of what would have followed; and even 
he, it appears, would have blushed to have brought forward this 
man’s testimony. But I trust that you, Gentlemen of the Jury, will 
this night do justice to my innocency, and if by your verdict I am 



90 


acquitted from this bar, I here solemnly pledge myself, that I shall 
in my turn become his prosecutor. 

Gentlemen, I am charged in the Indictment with having convoked 
the meetings which I afterwards harangued. Now, Henry Freeland, 
the next witness, President of the Society at Kirkintilloch, depones, 
that there was an intention of having a Society there before he ever 
saw me. Where then is this charge in the libel supported by evi¬ 
dence ? He mentions that the general purport of my speech was 
about shortening the duration of Parliament, and a more equal repre¬ 
sentation ; that I said I thought taxes might be lessened by these 
means, and that reform was not to take place as to the King and 
House of Lords, but only as to the Commons. Call you this sedition ? 
Does not every thing brought forward by these witnesses of the 
Crown, confute the false, the injurious, and the scandalous charge in 
the libel, of “ vilifying the Constitution,” and of “ exciting the people 
to rebellion against the King ?” 

Gentlemen, I now come to the most material part of Mr. Freeland’s 
evidence—indeed the most material evidence which the Prosecutor 
has been able to produce. A wide field is now before us, and I re¬ 
quest your most serious attention to what I shall now say, as it relates 
to a principal charge of the libel. 

Gentlemen, The Indictment charges me with a wickedly and 
feloniously circulating and distributing Paine’s book, in order to in¬ 
flame the minds of the people against the Constitution.” Now, 
Gentlemen, I ask you to lay your hands upon your breasts, and to 
say whether, in the circumstances under which I lent that book to 
the witness, there appears a shadow of “ felonious ” intention ? You 
know, Gentlemen, the newspapers of the day were full of advertise¬ 
ments announcing where the works of Mr. Paine were to be found. 
The cause of this curiosity in the public mind may be easily unfolded, 
without uttering a single syllable upon the intrinsic merit or demerit 
of these works. The situation of France roused the attention of 
Europe. To that country every eye was turned, and every man who 
could wield a pen, was employed in discussing the principles which 
the revolution had called forth. Mr. Burke entered the field of con¬ 
troversy. The name of that gentlemen would give sale and diffusion 
to any production. Mr. Burke fought upon one side of the question. 
He was encountered upon the opposite by Thomas Paine—both of 
them champions of approved vigour, and of undoubted prowess. 
Could public curiosity not be awakened to the contention of such 
men? It was most completely: the works of Burke and Paine flew 
with a rapidity to every corner of the land, hitherto unexampled in 
the history of political science. Is there a single man among you, 
who has not read the works either of Paine or of Burke ? Is there a 
person upon the Bench, upon the Jury, or in this audience, who has 
either not purchased, or lent the treatise upon the Rights of Man? 
Now, if one of you lent to a friend or relation, who might participate 
in the common curiosity, a single pamphlet of Mr. Paine’s, you are just 
as guilty as I am. If there had been a public law of the kingdom 


91 


condemning that book, the presumption of innocence could not he 
admitted by its rigid rule, and the mere act of giving away a single 
copy, would have been considered a violation of the letter of the law. 
But at the period when I lent Mr. Freeland, Paine’s works, was any 
sentence of reprobation thundered against them ? No! Therefore, 
Gentlemen, I was guilty of offending no existing law. I was not 
certified of my danger—I was not put upon my guard. Was there a 
judgment of any Court in England or Scotland against this book at 
that time ? No. Therefore I had no cause for alarm. True, some 
months before, a proclamation against seditious writings had been 
issued; but a proclamation, Gentlemen, is not law—it has no legisla¬ 
tive authority; and there was no mention of Mr. Paine’s works in that 
proclamation. Can you, therefore, now suppose, that there was any 
“ felonious intention ” in lending this book ? Did I advise the witness 
to read it, or to adopt its principles ? Why, Gentlemen, the mighty 
crime of sedition, with which I am charged, reduces itself into this 
simple fact—that to gratify the natural curiosity of a person who lives 
in my neighbourhood, and who is a distant relation, I lent a book 
which was in universal circulation, unnoticed by courts of justice, and 
uncondemned by law. 

[[Here symptoms of impatience began to be manifested by some of 
the Jury ! Mr. Muir instantly noticed it, and said:] 

Gentlemen, If, whether right or wrong, you have come here 
determined to find me guilty, say so boldly, openly, and, let me add, 
honestly: resort not to idle pretexts and expedients to justify a stretch 
of power. The unprejudiced eye will soon penetrate into these pre¬ 
texts, and the determination will soon receive the contempt and 
indignation of mankind. 

Gentlemen, I would now wish to direct your attention to what 
Mr. Paine’s writings are, and to the particular manner in which they 
are presented in accusation against me. And, Gentlemen, I will 
allow, that any writing which calls upon the people to rise in arms, 
to resist the law, and to subvert the Constitution, is something worse 
than seditious—that it is treasonable. But do the writings of Mr. 
Paine stand in that predicament ? Can you point out a single sentence 
where he provokes insurrection? In fact, Gentlemen, Mr. Paine’s 
writings are indisputably of a speculative nature. He investigates the 
first principles of Society—he compares different forms of Government 
together, and where he gives the preference, he assigns his reason for 
so doing. 

Gentlemen, I have neither time nor inclination to entertain you by 
any dissertation on the liberty of the press. If that liberty is sickly, 
the Constitution is likewise diseased. If that liberty is extinguished, 
the Constitution expires. You may ask what is the precise notion 
which I affix to the term Liberty of the Press? I will tell you 
honestly and without disguise. By the liberty of the press, I mean 
not the power of assassinating the reputation, or torturing the feelings 
of individuals. No crime, in my estimation, can be more heinous. 
By the liberty of the press, I mean not the power of degrading and 


92 


contaminating the public mind by tales of immorality. By the 
liberty of the press, I understand not the power of inflaming the 
minds of men against the Constitution—of stimulating the people to 
insurrection, and of tearing down the barriers of public property and 
of public security. Where Government is established, that Govern¬ 
ment must, or ought to be respected. And the truest Republic which 
ever yet existed, never could tolerate the internal foe, who within its 
own precincts, sounded the charge to civil war. By the Freedom of 
the Press, I understand the inalienable right of publishing 
truth ; of presenting to the world whatever may tend to public good 
—not hurting the feelings of individuals—trampling down morals—or 
established laws. 

Gentlemen, Constitutions of Government are the workmanship ot 
men: that Constitution is the most perfect which can be most easily 
amended. There are Constitutions which, step by step, without con¬ 
vulsion and without blood, have advanced to superior degrees of per¬ 
fection,—which by their own internal energy have effected their own 
reformation, and avoided the calamities of a Revolution. These ‘pro¬ 
gressive Constitutions, if I may use the expression, must always cherish 
and support the liberty of the press, as the chief instrument of their 
preservation. And, Gentlemen, how grateful should we be to Eternal 
Providence, that our Constitution possesses in itself the power of 
amendment—that without a Revolution, it can rectify its abuses—and 
that silently and without disorder, it can advance towards that chas¬ 
tened liberty, which constitutes human felicity. You have read the 
history of the British Constitution, and what is it but the history of a 
continual progress ? And what has been the impelling cause of that 
progress ? 1 answer, the universal diffusion of information by means 

of the liberty of the press. If you destroy that liberty, the people 
will be buried in ignorance—the iron throne of despotism will be 
erected. Let us then apply this argument to the case of Mr. Paine. 
This work, 1 again state, is merely of a speculative nature, upon the 
principles of Government. Now, if Mr. Paine’s work is inconsistent 
with the principles of the British Constitution, what is the conse¬ 
quence ? If the book is written with ingenuity, it will acquire readers. 
No man in his sound senses, the keenest advocate for a Parliamentary 
Reform, but will avert his eyes bathed in tears, and in horror of soul, 
from a Revolution. He will compare the principles of Mr. Paine 
with the Constitution. If Mr. Paine has pointed out any thing defec¬ 
tive in the Constitution, he will contribute his humble efforts to have 
that defect repaired. If, on the other hand, he still imagine that Mr. 
Paine has taken an erroneous view of this edifice, has misrepresented 
its properties, he will become more and more sensible, from his inquiry, 
of the security which he enjoys under its protection. The sense of 
danger will be removed, and his mind, undisturbed by gloomy appre¬ 
hensions, will enjoy tranquillity. Oh, how little do ye deem the British 
Constitution, who think that it is built upon the sand, which, when the 
rains descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow, and beat upon 
it, that it shall fall.—No, Gentlemen! When the rains descend, when 


93 


the floods come, when the winds blow, it shall not fall, for it is founded 
upon a rock. I then maintain, though not in accents sweet to the ear 
of corruption, or grateful to our courtly pride, or acceptable to ill-got 
power, that those speculative writers, who investigate the principles of 
our Constitution, who compare that Constitution with those of other 
countries, perform a meritorious service to this nation; these writers 
rather impel us to rectify that which is wrong, or more strongly con¬ 
firm us in our love and in our attachment to that which is right. Let 
Mr. Paine, then, be considered the bitterest enemy, if you will, to our 
Constitution, yet as long as he confines himself to speculation, we 
should not complain. Our best interests are involved in the Consti¬ 
tution, but, alas ! like interests of a higher rank—which are superior 
to time and extend to eternity—they are too apt to be forgotten, or 
to make but little impression upon us. But, Gentlemen, I say that if 
Mr. Paine has pointedly called our attention to the Constitution, he 
has performed to us an essential service—he has led us to contemplate 
its perfection, or roused us from our lethargy, to rectify such parts of 
it as may have suffered decay by time and corruption. 

Gentlemen, Shall the lending of a single copy of the works of this 
writer be held criminal ? Was there ever such a violation of the rights 
of Britons ? Mr. Paine has composed no model of a perfect Common¬ 
wealth, as Mr. Hume has done; yet I dare say you have all read the 
political works of Mr. Hume, and even applauded them. But if you 
do condemn a man for lending a copy of Mr. Paine’s Work, you do 
what even was not attempted to be done in the reign of Henry the 
Eighth, when the Constitution, if I may so speak, was shorn of its 
strength, and nearly strangled on the rack of despotism. Gentlemen, 
allow me to ask, whether with equality of rights, Mr. Paine has ever 
preached equality of property?—a chimera which may have entered 
into the brains of those who dream of a golden a^e, but who do not 
understand human nature. Yet, Gentlemen, under the arbitrary reign 
of Henry the Eighth, did not the illustrious Sir Thomas More, enjoy¬ 
ing the confidence of the King, and placed at the head of the law, 
publish his Utopia, the plan of his republic, of which an equal division 
of property, an Agrarian law, an universal community, formed the 
grand basis ? And, Gentlemen, in this enlightened age ;—when after 
so many fiery trials, our Constitution, in its pure and genuine princi¬ 
ples, stands unveiled to our view, will you condemn a man for lending a 
work equally speculative, and, if such a thing existed as a well-founded 
panic against “ levellers,” I would say, infinitely more dangerous? 

Gentlemen, I should be the last man to propose to your imitation 
the conduct of despots; but I call upon you to ponder well the words 
of a man, who rendered the terms republic and despotism nearly the 
same— I mean Cromwell. Under his Protectorship, when Harring¬ 
ton published his Oceana, a host of informers denounced that work. But 
what was Cromwell’s memorable answer to them ? “ My cause” 
said he, “ is too strong to be hurt by paper shot” Gentlemen, if you 
say, that by any publication the British Constitution can be injured, 
I think you would be guilty of the crime of libelling its strength. 


94 


But, Gentlemen, to conclude upon this head,—I maintain, that to 
suppress works purely speculative, provoking not the people to dis¬ 
obedience to the laws, nor to rebellion, however much these works 
may differ from the Constitution, would destroy the Liberty of the 

Press_would trample upon the best and the surest bulwark, which 

defends the approaches to that stupendous erection. If, Gentlemen, 
to lend the works of Thomas Paine, to-day be sedition, to lend a 
translation of the Republic of Plato, to-morrow would be treason. 
Gentlemen, the works of Mr. Paine are lying before me—I could 
read to you many passages to prove what I have so often stated, viz. 
that they are merely of a speculative nature; but, Gentlemen, you 
are exhausted, and so am I; and yet we have some length of field to 
travel over before we conclude.—For some of these passages I refer 
you to the late celebrated speech of Mr. Erskine,* one of the best 
friends the Constitution ever knew, although he is one of that proscribed 
and reprobated cast called the “ Friends of the People!” Gentlemen, 
I trust that you will now be persuaded, that neither the publishing, 
nor the lending of a speculative political book, is sedition. But I now 
call your attention to another circumstance—the manner in which 
criminality is attempted to be attached to that book and to myself. 
Various detached passages are quoted from it in the Indictment. They 
are called “ wicked,” “ inflammatory,” and “ seditious.” In the 
sacred name of justice, will you condemn any book for detached 
passages, separated from the whole connexion ? cut off from recipro¬ 
cal explanation, and from which neither its general tenour nor scope 
can be discovered ? If you do this, where is the book in which you 
cannot discover sedition, by dissecting its separate sentences and para¬ 
graphs ? For my part, if you proceed in this manner, I do not know 
a more dangerous collection than the very books of holy inspiration. 
Only separate verse from verse, and then combine them according to 
your whim or pleasure, and, Gentlemen, you may make the Bible one 
of the most seditious and treasonable books which ever was written. 
But you are neither to condemn that book nor me, for those detached 
passages exhibited in the Indictment. You must carry along with 
you the whole works of Mr. Paine—you must scrutinise line by line, 
and you must pronounce upon the general context. If, after trying 
them by this test, you find these works provoking the people to 
resistance, calling them forth to arms, to subvert the Constitution, 
then no doubt they are seditious. But if you find the author indulging 
himself in nothing but philosophical and political speculation, however 
much your principles and his may differ, you cannot condemn him for 
composing these works, or me, after they were composed and pub¬ 
lished, for lending them to a relation. 

Gentlemen, If you condemn books for being seditious, on account 
of passages culled from this page and from that, and artfully combined 
together, you have it in your power to award a proscription against 
universal literature. For, as I have already mentioned, there is not a 


* Vide Lord Erskine’s Speech, vol. ii. Defence of Paine. 


95 


single book in which, by dissecting it in this manner, sentence by 
sentence, and passage by passage, you may not discover immorality, 
blasphemy, and treason. Indeed, if the sad objects of reflection which 
present themselves to my miud, when I contemplate the state of my 
country, could permit me to indulge in a vein of ridicule, I would 
advise you at once to lay the axe to the root of the tree, and to bring 
an Indictment against the Alphabet itself, because it is the source of 
the evil to be dreaded ; its parts form the component elements of sen¬ 
tences and of paragraphs, which may contain the most dangerous 
sedition, and the most horrible treason. But this is not the time for 
me to indulge in the sport of humour. 

Gentlemen, I shall admit, for a moment, that the passages from Mr. 
Paine, and the books exhibited in the Indictment, may be highly 
criminal; but will any person venture to say, that I lent these books 
for containing such passages, or that I particularly pointed them out, 
and gave them my approbation ? If the Prosecutor has a right to 
presume that it was upon account of these passages I lent these writ¬ 
ings, I, too, have a right to draw a contrary presumption in my favour, 
and to say, that if there are sentiments in the works of Mr. Paine 
(and many such there are) fraught with universal benevolence, incul¬ 
cating universal amity and brotherhood, and of a tendency to dispel 
those passions and prejudices which animate and impel nation against 
nation, into fields jof blood and of carnage, I am-.entitled to plead upon 
these passages—I have a right to say that it was the antidote, and not 
the poison, I recommended—and you must know that the law of this 
country obliges you, where opposing presumptions are of equal strength, 
to let the balance preponderate on the side of the accused. 

Gentlemen, I shall conclude on the subject of Mr. Paine’s works, 
by observing, that all the witnesses have uniformly sworn that I 
refused to recommend them; that when the matter was proposed, I 
said the principles contained in them might mislead the people, as 
they were foreign to the object of the Society, and might misguide 
weak minds. There is not a witness adduced by the Prosecutor who 
says the contrary of this ; and will you agree in opiuion that the charge 
in the Indictment of “ circulating" and 54 recommending" these books, 
has the slightest shadow of support ? Gentlemen, I will tell you the 
reason why I did not recommend Mr. Paine’s books to the Societies 
in Scotland, and why I declared them foreign to their purpose. Mr. 
Paine is a Republican, and the spirit of Republicanism breathes through 
all his writings. This is his darling system. Whereas the object of 
these Societies was, by Constitutional means, to procure a reforma¬ 
tion in the Constitution, and not a revolution, which implied its 
destruction. In other words, their object was to have their long lost 
rights restored, but not by the assumption of new rights derived from 
a different system. Gentlemen, I am happy to find the people of 
Scotland rapidly advancing to a true sense of their Constitutional 
liberties—to see them demanding to have the Constitution restored to 
its genuine principles, in order that they may behold their liberties 
confirmed, and their happiness established. That they should advance 


96 


with more ardour in this cause, it was necessary that they should know 
the Constitution, what it had been in its vigour, and what it now is in 
its decay, by the corruption of men and of ages. And pray what did 
I do to effectuate these legal and enviable objects ? I did not present 
to the people the splendid fabrics of ancient or of modern Republics. 
I wished them to keep their eyes confined at home, to repair their 
own mansion, rather than pull it down, and not to expose themselves 
to the inconveniences and dangers of building upon new plans, the 
advantages or disadvantages of which could only be known by the 
uncertain experience of future ages. All the witnesses who speak of 
my conduct in the Societies, tell you that I recommended none but 
Constitutional measures—and that the only book which I recommended 
to them was Henry’s History of England, the best calculated, by its 
accuracy and plainness, to give them insight into the nature and pro¬ 
gress of the Constitution. 

Gentlemen, Having already explained the principle on which I 
refused to recommend the works of Mr. Paine; I again ask, was 
it ever before held criminal in an author to publish what speculative 
systems of Government he pleased, provided he confined himself to 
mere speculation, and did not advance forth to the field of action ? 
Was it a crime of Plato, under the Athenian Republic, to compose 
his beautiful system ? Was it high treason in Cicero, under the 
Roman Commonwealth, to write those renowned works which have 
been lost in the darkness of the Gothic night, and of which a few 
fragments could only he found when the morning of letters began to 
dawn upon Europe ? Was Sir Thomas More led forth to the scaffold 
for composing his Utopia ? Harrington proscribed for his Oceana ? 
Or Hume expelled for his Commonwealth ? No, Gentlemen, 
these authors indulged themselves in a liberty, which, if we are 
now to be deprived of, must leave this land in darkness and despair, 
since the attempt at amendment and reformation will be for ever 
precluded. 

Gentlemen, I now close my observations on the subject of Mr. 
Paine’s works, by calling you to remember that it was only a single 
copy which I lent; and the circumstances attending which, admitting 
the book to be as seditious and as treasonable as can be imagined, 
utterly excludes the idea of a “ felonious" circulation on my part. 
You are the first Jury in Scotland before whom Mr. Paine’s works 
have yet been brought. I trust you will act in such a manner as to 
do honour to yourselves, in doing justice to him and to me—that you 
will not attempt to annihilate political science—that, in this country, 
where our chief glory has arisen from literature, you will not limit 
her researches, but that you will rather indulge her in her unbounded 
flight into every region where the materials of human happiness and 
human improvement can be collected. Finally , I must tell you, that 
you are not bound by what any Jury has done in England—you are 
bound by the law of Scotland. But even the decisions in England 
have lost the respect due to them, although they were to be held out 
as precedents ; for we have seen Juries one day condemning the author 


97 


and the publishers, and on the succeeding day we have seen other 
Juries pronounce a verdict of acquittal. 

Gentlemen, The next witness is Ann Fisher, a late servant in my 
father’s house. Her evidence comes forward to you with peculiar dis¬ 
tinction—caressed by the Prosecutor, and complimented by the Court. 
I will soon shew you, Gentlemen, that she has but few pretensions to 
that accuracy of which the Lord Advocate spoke in such high terms— 
and that her memory possesses a singular quality—retentive to what¬ 
ever may militate against me—but hesitating and confused to whatever 
may seem in my favour. What this domestic, and well-tutored spy, has 
given in evidence against me, fills my mind with little concern. On 
the contrary, it affords me much satisfaction to find, that, when I was 
surrounded in the place where I expected most security—where all sus¬ 
picion was lulled asleep, my conduct was so guarded. What do I say? 
—guarded!—Innocence, Gentlemen, has no need to be on the watch. 

Even malice itself cannot condemn my conduct. But before I 
proceed to read her evidence from my notes, let me solemnly cau¬ 
tion you against the dangerous precedent of giving credibility to 
witnesses of this kind, under accusations of this nature. The 
crime of sedition, if you attend to its essence, never can be committed 
within the walls of a private house. It supposes the highest publicity— 
the convocation of many individuals together. But if power shall say 
that words spoken in an unguarded moment within the sacred walls of 
a family, amount to this crime, what will follow ? Not those with 
whom you have acted in your political life, and who, with the impres¬ 
sion of the oath of God upon them, can best tell the truth—not those 
whom you may have admitted to your friendship, and to your con¬ 
fidence, and who best know the secrets of your soul; but the meanest 
of your domestics, who could hardly approach your presence, even in 
their menial duties, if the expression may be used, to whom the mem¬ 
bers of a family are almost unknown ;—these !—these !—the meanest 
and the lowest, will be brought forward to swear away your property, 
your reputation, and your life 1 And such, Gentlemen, is this witness, 
who is adduced against me with such parade. Oh, Gentlemen, beware 
how you sanctify this shameful proceeding. It is not me you wound 
alone, but you destroy the confidence which subsists between man and 
man—you lead, by your own hands, to the fire-sides of your chil¬ 
dren and your dearest relations, the fiends of suspicion and of danger : 
and you for ever put an end to that reciprocity of communication, which 
enlivens and endears domestic society. But let us hear what this witness 
has to say. I will read you from my notes her evidence. If I have erred 
in taking it down, I will of course be corrected. (Here Mr. Muir read 
the evidence of Ann Fisher.) Gentlemen, the testimony of this witness 
seems to relate to two of the principal charges in the indictment. The 
first , to my having made speeches in public societies, vilifying the King 
and Constitution; the second, to my having distributed and recommended 
sedititous books, viz., Mr. Paine—the Patriot, &c. Under these two 
different articles let us examine the testimony of this witness. 

Gentlemen, The Prosecutor has told you that he could adduce any 

G 


98 


thing against me lie pleased, under the generality of the term sedition, 
even though it should not be specified in the libel. The Court has 
permitted him to do so: and in the case of this witness, you may see 
the dangerous effect of such doctrine. Gentlemen, I am accused of 
making seditious harangues in public, but this servant girl is adduced 
to swear to what she says, she may have heard in private , when she 
was probably instructed to take her watch, and mark to destruction 
those who fed her. But what is the dreadful language she has heard 
me use, even in my unguarded moments ? I will repeat what she 
says—I will recall to your remembrance her express words, which 
were—that if every body had a vote, I would be member for Cal- 
der—that members of Parliament would have 30s. or 40s. a day, and 
in that case, there would be none but honest men to keep the Con¬ 
stitution clear.” Gentlemen, you remember how the Public Prosecutor 
expatiated on these words of this witness. After labouring long in 
vain, he now fancied he had got something against me. I smiled at 
the indecency of his exultation at this part of the proceeding, but next 
moment I pitied him when I reflected he was a lawyer and chief 
Counsel for the Crown in Scotland. Here, said the Prosecutor, “ You 
see the cloven foot! —you see French principles manifested !—here 
you discover the whole tincture of his soul.—Members of Parliament 
to have 30s. or 40s. a day for their attendance !—to he honest men, 
and to keep the Constitution clear I Is not this evidence that he 
means to introduce in place of our House of Commons a National 
Convention, on French principles, and according to French forms I” 

Gentlemen, Sorry am I to see the ignorance of this Lord Advocate 
of Scotland. Is there a man who has opened the volume of the His¬ 
tory of our Constitution, who does not know, that until a very late 
period indeed, when corruption glided in, and tainted and poisoned 
it,—Members of Parliament received their wages from the hands of the 
people alone ? Oh, how I speak it with joy when I review the past— 
with sorrow when I contemplate the present. Our virtuous ancestors 
would have scorned to have received the price of their attendance 
from any other hands, than from the hands of the people. Then, 
indeed, the Constitution possessed all its energies. Then, indeed, it 
towered in the strength of age, but with the bloom of youth. The 
people delegated as their representatives, none but men of tried virtue 
and patriotism, in whom they could repose the most unbounded confi¬ 
dence. Look back, I entreat you, to all the great and good men whom 
English history records. Turn your eyes to the Hampdens—to the 

Sidneys—to the Marvilles, of former times—to these men_but I 

stop. Let the Lord Advocate pronounce their eulogium by his invective. 

Fisher proceeds to state, that she has heard me say, that France 
was the most flourishing nation in the world, as they had abolished 
tyranny and got a free Government;—that the Constitution of this 
country was very good, but that many abuses had crept in which 
required a thorough reform ;—therefore, Gentlemen, even in my most 
unguarded hours, this domestic spy cannot, by her evidence, support 
a tittle of the indictment, where it charges me with vilifying the King 



99 


and Constitution. Of her idle story of what I said concerning Courts 
of Justice,—that they needed a Reform, and that this Court in par¬ 
ticular got their money for nothing but pronouncing sentence of death 
upon poor creatures, &c. I disdain to take notice; only you will dis¬ 
cover her exquisite art. This day I am tried before this Court, and 
she supposes that by inventing, and throwing in a circumstance of this 
kind, in order to irritate the Judges against me, she will more com¬ 
pletely execute the wretched job she has undertaken to perform. 
Were there not more servants in the house, who had infinitely better 
opportunities to hear my conversation ? and must she, the lowest of 
them all, with whom she cannot pretend I had ever two minutes’ 
conversation, be singled out and pitched upon for this drudgery ? 

She next depones, that she heard me say that a republican form of 
Government was the best; but then she qualifies it by saying, that 
when I spoke of this country, I never deviated from the Constitution, 
but said, that a limited monarchy, under proper restrictions, was the 
best adapted to its interests. 

Gentlemen, The next article of sedition to which she depones, is of 
the most extraordinary kind, viz. that I had sent her to employ an 
organist, on the streets of Glasgow, to play the French tune, Ca Ira . 
What! Gentlemen I was a tune like this to lighten up the flames of 
civil discord, and to be the forerunner of this most terrible revolution ? 
Have you read the words of that most popular song—and can you 
discover a single allusion in them to the state of England ? Gentle¬ 
men, England has always cherished Freedom ; and shall it be deemed 
criminal in me to listen to the eff usions of joy poured out by a neigh¬ 
bouring people, on obtaining that first of human blessings, which 
always constituted our peculiar distinction ? 

But I know it well. The word Freedom is soon to be proscribed 
from our language;—it carries alarm and sedition in the sound. If 
I had caused to be recited one of those noble choruses of the Grecian 
drama, in which, with the enthusiasm of Liberty, the glories of the 
Republics of Athens or of Sparta were displayed in language more 
than mortal, my offence would have been deemed the same with that 
of amusing myself by hearing the national song of France. If it had 
been possible for me to have caused to be sung upon the streets of 
Glasgow one of the Psalms of the Hebrews, in the original language, 
in which the triumphs of the people and the destruction of tyrants 
are recorded in a strain of the highest poetical inspiration, the crimin¬ 
ality would have been the same with that of listening to Ca Ira* 

Gentlemen, Let me abandon the subject. My political career has 
neither been obscure nor inglorious—it has undergone the severest 
scrutiny which ever fell to the lot of man—and after every engine has 
been employed—after heaven and earth have been moved, the tremen- 

* We wonder what Lord Advoeate Dundas would have said to the patriotic song 
of Burns, “ Scots wha hae wi’ Wallace bled?” We think he would have called the 
following lines wicked and treasonable. 

“ Lay the proud usurpers low! 

Tyrants fall in every foe ! 

Liberty’s in every blow, 

Forward ! let us do or die!” 


100 


dous charge of sedition is, after all, to be supported by the testimony 
of a domestic spy, swearing, not to my serious occupation, but to the 
amusement of an idle hour, in listening to a foreign tune! I But let 
us next attend to the evidence of Fisher, as far as it relates to “ seditious 
•publications .’’ She swears that I used to recommend to a great many 
country people (who came to my father’s shop) to purchase and to 
read the works of Mr. Paine. But, Gentlemen, in the “ number of 
country people,” she can only specify one, viz. John Barclay, and when 
you examine his evidence, you will see he gives her the flattest con¬ 
tradiction. She swore that she bought at two different times for my 
uncle, Alexander Muir, at my request, a copy of the first part, and a 
copy of the second part of the Rights of Man. Can you suppose that 
if my intentions had been “ felonious ” I would have introduced such 
writings into my own family ? Can you imagine that I would have 
wished to involve in the conflagration of my country my nearest rela¬ 
tions, to whose property 1 may eventually succeed. Why is Alexan¬ 
der Muir not brought forward as a witness ? Certain it is, that he 
was closely interrogated before the inquisition held by Mr. Sheriff 
Honyman. But the Lord Advocate says that his feelings would not 
permit him to examine the uncle against the nephew.—Goodness ever 
to be remembered and extolled ! But, my Lord, (turning to the Lord 
Advocate,) did you not advise and direct the whole proceedings against 
me, and will you have the effrontery to maintain that Alexander Muir 
was not dragged like a felon from his own home by the myrmidons of 
power,—carried before your friend Honyman,—and that every art was 
employed to wring from him every domestic secret ? 

Speak, then, to us of your humanity !—Aye ! Continue to 6peak to 
us of your feelings ! 

Gentlemen, Fisher next swears that I pressed John Muir to pur¬ 
chase Paine’s works—that he was prevailed upon, and that she was 
sent to purchase them. Now you heard the evidence of this man in 
express contradiction to this witness. She next tells you that I advised 
another domestic, W 7 ilson my hair-dresser, to purchase Paine’s works 
and keep them in his shop, “ in order to enlighten the people,” and you 
heard Wilson express himself far otherwise. She speaks of carrying 
some paper which she thinks was a Declaration of Rights to a printing 
office to be corrected.—Every thing in her evidence is made to tally 
with the Indictment. I am there accused of circulating a paper entitled 
a Declaration of Rights by the Friends of Reform in Paisley; and this 
respectable personage, so highly complimented by the Court, must 
likewise swear something concerning it. Yet her tenacioua memory 
utterly fails her here. She thinks she can only remember what the title 
was, but nothing more. She knows nothing of the substance of the 
writing—but her evidence is to give a colour to the allegation of my 
having circulated that paper from Paisley, and to furnish ground for 
insinuating that I was the author of it. 

Gentlemen, The witness next swears to a fact which must rouse 
your keenest indignation. Vigilant has this family-spy been in the 
course of her duty. She tells you what books she has seen on my 


101 


table, &c. Gentlemen, from this moment lock up your libraries. If 
they are extensive as you have heard mine is, there is no crime in the 
whole decalogue, of which by the testimony of your own servants, you 
may not be found guilty. The possession of Plato, of Harrington, or 
ot Hume, will mark you down for Republicans. The misfortune of 
having the Koran of Mahomet will cause the shipwreck of your faith, 
and stigmatize you as the disciples of the conqueror of Mecca. Well 
do I congratulate the Lord Advocate of Scotland. He has discovered 
a new region in the sphere of criminality—he will not merely confine 
himself to one voyage of discovery, but, along with his associates, he 
will make many voyages to this fertile land, and return home loaded 
with many valuable cargoes. But seriousness becomes this place. 
Can it be believed, that in the close of the ISth century,—that this 
night,—the servants of a man should be examined concerning what 
particular books he may have had in his house, and that the proof of 
possession of particular books may ruin his reputation—sweep away 
his property—and deprive him of his life! Gentlemen, if you pos¬ 
sess the common feelings of men, every sentiment of indignation must 
be excited, not against this witness, for she is rather to be pitied, but 
against the manner in which this crime of sedition has been attempted 
to be proved. 

Gentlemen, The libel charges me with “ feloniously circulating a 
Dialogue between the Governors and the Governed,” extracted from 
the Ruins of Volney. This Dialogue is narrated in the Indictment, and 
it is charged to be felonious and seditious. There is not a word in 
this Dialogue which is not true. Alas ! in colours but too faithful, it 
delineates the mournful history of six thousand years,—the crimes of 
despots, and the artifices of impostors, to subjugate and to blind the 
people. It is purely abstracted. It is entirely speculative. To no 
particular nation, much less to England, does it allude—if to any it 
must be to France under the ancient system. Yet this Dialogue is 
libelled as seditious and inflammatory. The truth is, the crime of 
sedition must be brought home against me, and the possession of any 
book, as well as that of Volney, might be employed to substantiate it. 
Let us hear what the witness says concerning the “ felonious ” circu¬ 
lation. She heard me read it in presence of my mother, sister, and 
some other people—that I said it was very clever, and done by one of 
the first wits in France. Who were those “ other people,” that were 
in company with my mother and sister, when I read it ? Her accuracy, 
so much extolled by the Court, again totally fails her here. But the 
propagation of sedition must not be confined to a mother and a sister, 
—it must have a wider range : “ other people present !” and founding 
upon his beloved generality, the Prosecutor has reason to argue that 
there might have been a full company—a numerous meeting—nay, an 
immense congregation! 

Gentlemen, You have heard the testimony of Fisher, and are these 
the arts by which I am to fall ? I again say, that if you receive such 
testimony, you for ever destroy domestic society—you blast the 
sweets of family Confidence. And is it not sufficient to weep over 


102 


public calamities, without thinking, that when we retire to our own 
homes, we must be obliged to confine ourselves in dismal solitude, 
guarded by suspicion and by danger, where no kindred affections can 
enter, and where no reciprocal consolation can be admitted ? 

Gentlemen, I hasten over the evidence of the remaining witnesses 
against me. I am overcome by the exertions of this day; and you 
must be greatly exhausted. 

The next is the evidence of Thomas Wilson, my hairdresser, and 
he is brought to bring up the rear of Fisher’s testimony. He 
depones, that I asked him if he had bought a copy of Paine’s works, 
and that I advised him to get a copy of them, as a barber’s shop was 
a good place to read in. Does this confirm the testimony of Fisher, 
who says I desired him to buy that work, and “ to keep it in his shop 
in order to enlighten the people ?” Mark the art of Fisher. How 
strongly she paints what might seem to strike against me—“ to en¬ 
lighten the people !” But does Wilson concur in this? No. He tells 
you, that he bought a copy of the Address to the Addressers ; but 
not by my advice. He even recollects the levity of conversation. 
An old man from the country came in while he was dressing me. He 
remembers I said, that this old man was a great reformer. If I ever 
said so, I wish it may not have been in jest, but in earnest, and that 
the fact with regard to the man was true; for, Gentlemen, I know of 
none who should be greater reformers of themselves and of others, 
than those who are standing on the brink of the grave, or hastening to 
eternity. But I am afraid that this witness only remembers a piece 
of unmeaning gaiety; for he adds, the old man said, “ I was taunting 
him.” 

Gentlemen, The conclusion of the evidence of Wilson affords me 
much consolation. It is a proof of the innocency of my private life, in 
moments when I could not possibly think of the affectation of integrity. 
He swears that he has always heard me say, that I would “ maintain 
the Constitutionand that I wished for “ peace and good order,” 
and “ good morals among the people ;” and that he “ never heard me 
speak against the King.” 

The next testimony is that of John Muir. He tells you, that he 
had a conversation with me in September last about Paine’s book in 
my father’s house; that he asked the loan of it from me; that I told 
him I had it not. Does this resemble the conduct of a man accused 
of distributing these books to all and sundry, and scattering them over 
every portion of the land? He says, I mentioned I would send a 
servant who would get it for him ; that a servant girl accordingly 
went and got it. Does not this completely confute the testimony of 
Fisher, who affirms that I much “ pressed ” this man to purchase that 
book ? since he tells you, that he himself asked the loan of it ? Is not 
this a complete contradiction of her testimony ? 

The next witness is John Barclay, that old and venerable person, 
whom you saw adduced as a witness by the Prosecutor, and who 
informs you, that we were Elders in the same parish—the parish of 
Calder, in which the lands of my father are situated. Gentlemen, 


103 


the Lord Advocate, in speaking of this virtuous and venerable old 
man, exclaimed with insolent contempt, “ Such men as these are the 
companions, and such men as these are the friends of Mr. Muir!” 
Yes ; I tell the Lord Advocate—I tell the Aristocracy of Scotland— 
I glory more in the friendship of such an old, poor, and virtuous man, 
than in the friendship of the highest titled Peer, who derives the 
sources of his guilty grandeur from the calamities of the people;— 
who wrings out a splendid, but a miserable revenue, from their sorrow 
and distress,—from their tears,—and from their blood,—which he 
squanders in dissipation,—to the ruin of private virtue,—and to the 
contamination of public morals. 

Let us see, then, what Mr. Barclay says against me;—that “ he 
asked my opinion concerning Paine’s books,”—that I told him he 
might purchase them if he chose, as they were printed,—but that I 
afterwards said “ they w r ere not books for us.” Does Mr. Barclay’s evi¬ 
dence support the criminal charge in the libel, of my advising people 
to purchase seditious books, and of my circulating them over the 
country ?—Does not Mr. Barclay’s evidence shew that I never recom¬ 
mended Mr. Paine’s works, and said that they were not works for 
us, who were simply engaged in the cause of a Parliamentary and 
Constitutional Reform ? Gentlemen, is there a single witness brought 
forward by the Prosecutor, who has in the smallest degree stated any 
conversation of mine which was unconstitutional ? Hear what Mr. 
Barclay says :—he was frequently with me, and in my library, from 
which he borrowed books;—that he had many conversations with me, 
and heard me say, that the Constitution of this country was an excel¬ 
lent one :—that I praised the King, and always spoke of order, regu¬ 
larity, and obedience to the ruling powers. In short, Gentlemen, 
the best of the witnesses for the Prosecutor use the same uniform 
language,—attest that neither in public nor in private, a single expres¬ 
sion ever dropped from me, which the most violent associator 
could construe into guilt. 

The last witness of whom I shall take notice is William Muir, the 
person whose religious principles at first induced him rather to suffer, 
according to the elegant expression of the Lord Advocate, eternal 
imprisonment, than to take the oath, until his scruples were removed 
by the Rev. Mr. Dun. He swears, that in my father’s house, at 
Huntershill, I gave him eleven numbers of the Patriot, and a copy of 
the Political Progress. From these numbers of the Patriot several 
passages are quoted in the indictment. Of the Political Progress 
there is no mention made; and I maintain that every passage in the 
Patriot, quoted in the libel, is highly constitutional. The sentiments 
advanced in them may not sound musically sweet to the ears of cor¬ 
ruption. They call upon the people to arise and vindicate the purity 
of the Constitution—to vindicate their long lost rights ; and, Gentle¬ 
men, if my feeble voice could extend to the remotest corners of 
Scotland, I should resound the same sentiment in the same language. 
These numbers of the Patriot speak to you concerning Septennial 
Parliaments. And I say, that the Act which converted Triennial 


104 


Parliaments into Septennial, violated our Constitution, tore the charter 
of our national liberties, and paved the way for the inroads of a 
frightful despotism. But this witness concurs with all the preceding 
witnesses in regard to my conduct and principles. He swears 
that he does not remember to have heard me speak against Govern¬ 
ment ;—that I did not advise unconstitutional measures, and that he 
heard me tell how Old Sarum was represented. Old Sarum repre¬ 
sented !—Do not the friends of the Constitution weep, and do 
not the enemies of the Constitution smile, when they hear of such 
representation ? 

Gentlemen, Before I speak to the third article of accusation, the 
reading in the Convention the Address of the Society of United Irish¬ 
men of Dublin, permit me to make one observation on the manner in 
which the Prosecutor spoke of the papers found in my custody. Do 
they correspond with the view which he presented of them ? Are 
they the documents of correspondence with foreign or internal foes ? 
No, Gentlemen. Among my papers there is not one which can be 
construed into any thing like guilt. They consist of pamphlets, 
unconnected with the politics of the day, and of the various publica¬ 
tions of a Society, pure and untainted in its principles, of which I 
have the honour to be a member. But every thing must be ransacked 
to heap crimination upon my head. One of the letters which I had 
undertaken to deliver in Scotland, is addressed to the Rev. Fische 
Palmer. “ Mark!” cries the Lord Advocate, “ the company which 
this man keeps. Who (says he,) is Mr. Palmer, but a person who 
is likewise indicted for sedition, and who is to be tried in a few days 
at Perth.” Unheard of cruelty—unexampled insolence I What! 
before this Court—this Jury—this audience—do you (looking in the 
face of the Lord Advocate,) attempt to prejudicate and condemn Mr. 
Palmer in his absence, undefended, and without any possibility of 
defending himself? But, exclaims the Lord Advocate, the “seal 
upon the letter” is a proof of the most atrocious guilt. Gentlemen, 
what is it ? Horrible to tell! it is the Cap of Liberty ! supported 
upon a spear, with the words Ca Ira above ! Gentlemen, all this is 
perfectly consistent. When you attempt to banish the substance of 
freedom, the shadow must follow! When a new coinage takes place 
his Lordship has given a most excellent hint. The officers of the 
Mint will surely profit by the lesson, and they will no more scatter 
sedition throughout the land, by impressing upon our halfpennies the 
figure of Britannia, with a spear in her hand, mounted with the Cap 
of Liberty ! But I am ashamed to enter into such trifles. 

Gentlemen, I now come to the last charge—that of having read in 
the Convention of Delegates, the Address from the Society of United 
Irishmen in Dublin. Gentlemen, I admit the fact, and I glory in the 
admission. The Prosecutor has represented that Society as a gang of 
mean and nefarious conspirators ; and their diploma* of my admission 
into their number, as an aggravation of my crime. Gentlemen, let me 
tell the Lord Advocate of Scotland, that that Society stands too 
* Copied in Appendix. 


105 


high to be affected by his invective, or to require the aid of my de¬ 
fence. I arn a member of that Society; and in the last moments of 
my life to have been so, shall be my honour and my pride. The Lord 
Advocate has represented to you in general terms, that that Address 
amounts almost to Treason, but he durst not attempt to point out 
in his speech, a single passage which could support the aspersion. 
I maintain that every line of that Address is strictly constitutional. 
You must carry the whole of it along with you, and not judge of 
particular passages scandalously mutilated in the Indictment. Gentle¬ 
men,! will read over many passages of this Address, not merely because 
they are the production of an immortal pen, but because every word is 
regulated by the spirit of the Constitution. (Here Mr. Muir read 
the Address, which we have published at length in the Appendix.) 

Gentlemen, The Lord Advocate, however, has represented the 
authors of this Address, as the meanest of mankind, and has expressly 
called them “ infamous wretches who had fled from the punishment 
due to their crimes.” What slander !—what false—unfounded slander ! 
Has Doctor Drennan—has Mr. Hamilton Rowan, whose names are 
at the head of this Address, fled from crimes and from punishment ?— 
and they are “ infamous wretches!” Gentlemen, if ever after ages shall 
hear of my name, I wish it may be recorded, that to these men I had 
the happiness of being known. To be honoured by the notice of Dr. 
Drennan is an ambition to which, in the most exalted station of life, 
I would fondly aspire. To have it said that I was the friend of Mr. 
Hamilton Rowan, I would consider as the passport to the only ac¬ 
quaintances whom I value,—those who found their claim to distinction 
upon the only true basis, I mean their own virtues. Mr. Rowan is in¬ 
deed indicted to stand trial in Ireland upon a charge similar to my own. 
He will boldly meet his accusation—and let me say along with those 
who know him, that although it is impossible to add new lustre to his 
character, yet as he has often come forward in the cause of individual 
humanity, he will display himself upon that occasion, the firm,—the 
intrepid,—and I hope the successful champion of the liberties of his 
native country.* 

Gentlemen, I hasten to a conclusion. Much yet remains to say. 
But after, upon my part, the unremitted exertion of sixteen hours, 
1 feel myself nearly exhausted. 

Look once more, I entreat you, to the Indictment, and compare it 
with the evidence. 

The first charge against me is, that, in public speeches, I vilified 
the King and Constitution. All the witnesses adduced, attest, that 
both in public and in private, even in my most unguarded moments, 
my language was always respectful to the King, and that I always 
recommended the Constitution. 

The second charge against me is, that of advising the people to read 
seditious books, and of distributing inflammatory publications among 
them. And you hear it proved, by the almost unanimous voice of 

* See quotation from the eloquent Speech of Curran in Defence of Mr. Rowan, 
Appendix, in which allusion is made to Mr. Muir. 


106 


the witnesses for the Crown, that I refused to recommend any books, 
and that the only one which I recommended was Dr. Henry’s History 
of England. You will not forget the circumstances in which I lent 
Freeland a copy of Paine’s works; nor will you forget the manner in 
which the writings of that mail were introduced in conversation with 
Wilson, Muir, and Barclay. With regard to other books and pam¬ 
phlets mentioned in the libel, there is not any proof. Wm. Muir has 
deponed, that I gave him one or two numbers of the Patriot, and some 
other pamphlets, whose titles I cannot remember. Gentlemen, I 
frankly acknowledge that I gave him those numbers of the Patriot; 
and if I were not now entirely overcome by fatigue, I could demon¬ 
strate to you, that, in those numbers, there is not a single sentiment 
unconstitutional or seditious. 

I am accused of reading the Irish Address in the Convention, and 
of moving a solemn answer in return. That Address is “ neither 
“ seditious, wicked, nor inflammatory.” There is not a sentence in it 
which I have not defended in your presence. Gentlemen, you neither 
can do justice to me, nor to the country, if you condemn these different 
publications, upon account of the scandalously mutilated extracts from 
them in the libel. You must carry the whole of them along with you 
from this place. It is not upon detached passages you are to judge ; 
but you must decide upon the whole. 

Gentlemen of the Jury, This is perhaps the last time that I shall 
address my country. I have explored the tenour of my past life. 
Nothing shall tear from me the record of my former days. The 
enemies of Reform have scrutinized, in a manner hitherto unexampled 
in Scotland, every action I may have performed—every word I may 
have uttered—of crimes most foul and horrible have I been accused— 
of attempting to rear the standard of civil war—to plunge this land in 
blood—and to cover it with desolation. At every step as the evidence 
of the Crown advanced, my innocency has brightened. So far from inflam¬ 
ing the minds of men to sedition and to outrage, all the witnesses have 
concurred that my only anxiety was to impress upon them the neces¬ 
sity of peace, good order, and good morals. What, then, has been my 
crime ? Not the lending to a relation a copy of Mr. Paine’s works— 
not the giving away to another a few numbers of an innocent and 
constitutional publication—but my crime is for having dared to he , 
according to the measure of my feeble abilities , a strenuous and active 
advocate for an equal Representation of the People in the. House of 
the People —for having dared to accomplish a measure, by legal means, 
which was to diminish the weight of their taxes, and to put an end to the 
profusion of their blood. Gentlemen, from my infancy to this moment, 
I have devoted myself to the cause of the People. It is a good 

CAUSE-IT SHALL ULTIMATELY PREVAIL-IT SHALL FINALLY 

triumph. Say, then, openly, in your verdict, if you do condemn me, 
which, I presume, you will not—that it is for my attachment to this 
cause alone—and not for those vain and wretched pretexts stated in the 
Indictment, intended only to colour and disguise the real motives of 
my accusation. 


107 


Gentlemen, The time will come, when men must stand or fall by 
their actions—when all human pageantry shall cease—when the 
hearts of all shall be laid open. If you regard your most important 
interests—if you wish that your conscience should whisper to # you 
words of consolation, or speak to you in the terrible language of re¬ 
morse, weigh well the verdict you are to pronounce. As for me, I 
am careless and indifferent to my fate. I can look danger, and I can 
look death in the face, for I am shielded by the consciousness of my 
own rectitude—I may be condemned to languish in the recesses of a 
dungeon—I may be doomed to ascend the scaffold. Nothing can 
deprive me of the recollection of the past,—nothing can destroy my 
inward peace of mind, arising from the remembrance of having dis¬ 
charged my duty.” 

W hen Mr. Muir sat down, an unanimous burst of applause was 
expressed by the audience. (He spoke nearly three hours—com¬ 
menced his address at 10 at night, and finished about 1 on Saturday 
morning.) 

The Lord Justice Clerk shortly summed up the evidence. His Lord- 
ship said that the Indictment was the longest he had ever seen ; but it 
was not necessary to prove the whole, in order to find the pannel guilty, 
for the Jury had only to look at the concluding sentence of the In¬ 
dictment, from which it was plain, that if any one part of the libel 
was proven, it established the guilt of the pannel the same as if the 
whole was substantiated. 

Now (said his Lordship), this is the question for consideration : Is 
the pannel guilty of sedition, or is he not ? Now, before this question 
can be answered, two things must be attended to that require no proof. 
First , That the British Constitution is the best that ever was since the 
creation of the world, and it is not possible to make it better. For is 
not every man secure ?—-does not every man reap the fruits of his own 
industry, and sit safely under his own fig-tree? The next circum¬ 
stance is, that there was a spirit of sedition in this country last winter, 
which made every good man very uneasy. And his Lordship coin¬ 
cided in opinion with the master of the Grammar-school of Glasgow, 
who told Mr. Muir that he thought proposing a Reform was very ill- 
timed. Yet Mr. Muir had at that time gone about among ignorant 
country people, making them forget their work, and told them that a 
Reform was absolutely necessary for preserving their liberty, which, 
if it had not been for him, they would never have thought was in 
danger. His Lordship did not doubt that this would appear to them, 
as it did to him, to be sedition. 

The next thing to be attended to was the outlawry. Running 
away from justice— that was a mark of guilt. And what could he do 
in France at that period ?—pretending to be an ambassador to a foreign 
country, without lawful authority, that was rebellion ; and he pretends 
to have had influence with those wretches, the leading men there. 
And what kind of folks were they ? His Lordship said, he never 
liked the French all his days , but notv he hated them. 

The Pannel’s haranguing such multitudes of ignorant weavers, 


108 


about their grievances, might have been attended with the worst con¬ 
sequences to the peace of the nation, and the safety of our glorious 
Constitution. 

Mr. Muir might have known, that no attention could be paid to 
such a rabble. What right had they to representation ? He could 
have told them that the Parliament would never listen to their petition. 
How could they think of it ? A Government in every country should 
be just like a Corporation,* and in this country it is made up of the 
landed interest which alone has a right to be represented. As for the 
rabble, who have nothing but personal property, what hold has the 
nation of them ? What security for the payment of their taxes ? They 
may pack up all their property on their backs, and leave the country 
in the twinkling of an eye, but landed property cannot be removed. 

The tendency of the Pannel’s conduct was plainly to promote a 
spirit of revolt, and if what was demanded was not given, to take it 
by force. His Lordship had not the smallest doubt that the Jury were 
like himself, convinced of the Pannel’s guilt, and desired them to 
return such verdict as would do them honour. 

The Court retired at two o’clock on Saturday morning, and met 
again at 12 o’clock of the same day, when the Jury returned a verdict 
unanimously finding the Pannel “ Guilty of the crimes libelled .” 

The verdict being recorded, the Lord Justice Clerk addressed the 
Jury, and said that this trial had been of the greatest importance. Pie 
was happy that they had bestowed so much attention upon it, and 
informed them that the Court highly approved of the verdict they had 
given. He then desired their Lordships to state what punishment 
should be inflicted, which they did to the following purport. 

Lord Henderland\ observed, that the alarming situation in which 
this country was, during the course of last winter, gave uneasiness to 
all thinking men. His Lordship said, that he now arrived at the 
most disagreeable part of the duty incumbent upon him, which was, 
to fix the punishment due to the crime of which the pannel was fouud 
guilty. The Indictment contained a charge of sedition, exciting a 
spirit of discontent among the inferior classes of people, and an attack 
against the glorious Constitution of this country. The Jury, by the 
verdict which they had returned, and to which the Court had alone 
recourse, had found the pannel guilty; and it was their Lordships’ 
duty only, now to affix the punishment due to the offence. His 
Lordship said he would not dwell upon the evil consequences of the 
crimes committed by the prisoner. The melancholy example of a 
neighbouring country, which would for ever stain the page of history, 
rendered it unnecessary for him to recapitulate the circumstances of 
the case. In that country, the consequences of such measures have 
produced every kind of violence, rapine, and murder. There appeared, 
he said, to have been in this country a regular plan of seditious mea¬ 
sures. The indecent applause which was given to Mr. Muir last 

* Horace Twiss, Sir Charles Wetheral, and Co. must have been studying his 
Lordship lately !—Excellent worthies! + 

f “ Clerk oi' the Pipe” for Scotland. 


109 


night, at the conclusion of his defence, within these walls, unknown 
to that High Court, and inconsistent with the solemnity which ought 
to pervade the administration of justice, and which was insulting to 
the laws and dignity of that Court, proved to him that the spirit of 
sedition had not as yet subsided. He would not, he said, seek to 
aggravate the offence committed by the pannel, by the misconduct of 
others, in order to increase the punishment. The punishment to be 
inflicted is arbitrary, of which there is a variety. Banishment, he 
observed, would be improper, as it would only be sending to another 
country, a man, where he might have the opportunity of exciting the 
same spirit of discontent, and sowing with a plentiful hand sedition. 
Whipping was too severe and disgraceful, the more especially to a 
man who had bore his character and rank in life. And imprisonment, 
he considered, would be but a temporary punishment, when the crimi¬ 
nal would be again let loose, and so again disturb the happiness of 
the people. There remains but one punishment in our law, and it 
wrung his very heart to mention it, viz. transportation . It was a duty 
his Lordship considered he owed to his countrymen to pronounce it, in 
the situation in which he sat, as the punishment due to the pannel’s 
crimes. His Lordship observed, it was extraordinary that a gentleman of 
his description, of his profession, and of the talents he possessed, should 
he guilty of a crime deserving such a punishment; but he saw no 
alternative; for what security could we have against his future opera¬ 
tions, but a removal from his country, to a place where he could do 
no further harm ? His Lordship was therefore of opinion, that the 
pannel should be re-committed to prison, there to remain till a proper 
opportunity should offer for transporting him to such place as his 
Majesty, with the advice of his Privy Council, might appoint, for the 
space of fourteen years from the date of the sentence; and that he 
should not return within that period, under the pain of death. 

Lord Swinton .* The crime with which the pannel is, by a Jury of 
his country, found guilty, is sedition. It is a generic crime—defined 
by our lawyers to be a commotion of the people without authority, 
and of exciting others to such commotion against the public welfare. 
This crime, he observed, consisted of many gradations, and might 
have run from a petty mob about wages, even to high treason. He 
thought the punishment should be adapted to the crime. The ques¬ 
tion, he said, then was, what was the degree of the crime the pannel 
has been guilty of ?—and that was to be discovered from the libel, of 
which he has been found guilty by the unanimous verdict of the Jury. 
It appeared to his Lordship to be a crime of the most heinous kind, 
and there was scarcely a distinction between it and high treason, as 
by the dissolution of the social compact, it made way for, and so 
might be said to include every sort of crime, murder, robbery, rapine, 
fire-raising, in short, every species of wrong, public and private. 
This, he observed, was no theoretical reasoning, for we had it exem¬ 
plified before our eyes in the present state of France, where, under 


* See Pension List of Scotland for “ Swinton.” 


110 


the pretence of asserting liberty, the worst sort of tyranny was estab¬ 
lished, and all the loyal and moral ties which bind mankind were 
broken. Nay, shameful to tell, even religion itself was laid aside, 
and publicly disavowed by the National Convention. And in this 
country certain wretched persons had assumed to themselves, most 
falsely and insidiously, the respectable name of Friends of the People 
and of Reform, although they deserved the very opposite denomina¬ 
tion ; by which means they have misled and drawn after them a great 
number of well-meaning, though simple and unwary people. If pun¬ 
ishment adequate to the crime were to be sought for, there could be 
found no punishment in our law sufficient for the crime in the pre¬ 
sent case, now that torture is happily abolished.* 

By the Roman law, which is held to be our common law where 
there is no statute, the punishment was various, and transportation 
was among the mildest mentioned. Paulus L. 38, Dig. de Pcenis, 
writes, Adores seditionis et tumidtus, populo concitci/o, pro qualitate 
dignitatis , aut in furcam tolluntur , ant bestiis objiciuntur , aut in 
insulam deportantur. We have chosen the mildest of these punish¬ 
ments. By the Codex , lib. 9, t. 30, de seditiosis et his qui plebem 
contra rempublicam audent collegere, 1 . 1 and 2, such persons are 
subjected admulctam gravissimam. Baldus writes, Provocans tumid- 
tum et clamorem in populo , debet mori , poena seditionis. And by a 
Constitution of the Emperor Leo, JSubdandos autem pcenis eis quas 
de seditionis et tumultus audoribus vetustissima deer eta sanxerint. 

The sole object of punishment among us is only to deter others 
from committing the like crime in time coming; therefore, the pun¬ 
ishment should be made equal to the crime. All that is necessary is, 
that it serve as an example and terror to others, in time coming, 
ngainst a repetition of the like offence. In the present case, he thought 
that transportation was the lightest punishment that could be assigned, 
and that for the space of fourteen years. 

Lord Dunsinnan concurred. 

Lord Abercrombie. His Lordship did not think it necessary to say 
much as to the enormity of the crime, after what had been already 
said. By our law it might have amounted to treason, and, even as 
the law now stands, it came very near it. He observed that Mr. 
Muir, last night, when conducting his defence, had stated, and which 
was marked, and it had great weight with him, “ That the people 
should be cautious, and by all manner of means avoid tumults and 
disorders ; for, through time, the mass of the people would bring 
about a revolution.” (Here Mr. Muir rose and said, “ I deny it , my 
Lord—it is totally false!') If any thing could add to the improper 
nature of the pannel’s defence, it was his pretended mission to France, 
and the happiness he expressed in the circle of acquaintance he had 
there. It was evident, said his Lordship, that his feelings did too 
much accord with the feelings of those monsters. His Lordship 


* ?^ e „ us ® of Tort ' Ure was only put an end to, in Scotland, by an Act of the 
British Parliament in 1708 . J 


Ill 


coincided with the rest of their Lordships, in regard to the punish¬ 
ment which they thought Mr. Muir deserved. 

Lord Justice Clerk. His Lordship said he was considerably affected 
to see the pannel tried for sedition, a man who had got a liberal edu¬ 
cation—was member of a respectable society—possessed considerable 
talents—and had sustained a respectable character. His Lordship 
considered the very lowest species of this crime as heinous, and that 
it was aggravated according to the object in view. Here the object 
was important; for it was creating in the lower classes of people dis¬ 
loyalty and dissatisfaction to Government, and this amounting to the 
highest sort of sedition is bordering on treason, and a little more would 
have made the pannel stand trial for his life. 

His Lordship agreed in the propriety of the proposed punishment, 
and he observed, that the indecent applause which w r as given the 
pannel last night convinced him, that a spirit of discontent still lurked 
in the minds of the people, and that it would be dangerous to allow 
him to remain in this country. His Lordship said, this circumstance 
had no little weight with him, when considering of the punishment 
Mr. Muir deserved. He never had a doubt but transportation was 
the proper punishment for such a crime, but he only hesitated whether 

it should be for life, or for the term of fourteen years_The latter he 

preferred, and he hoped the pannel would reflect on his past conduct, 
and see the impropriety which he had committed ; and that if he should 
be again restored to his country, he might still have an opportunity of 
showing himself to be a good member of that Constitution which he 
seemed to despise so much. 

After his Lordship had delivered his opinion, and during the time 
the sentence was recording, Mr. Muir rose and said:— 

“ My Lords, I have only a few words to say. I shall not animad¬ 
vert upon the severity or the leniency of my sentence. Were I to be 
led this moment from the bar to the scaffold, I should feel the same 
calmness and serenity which I now do. My mind tells me that Ihave 
acted agreeably to my conscience , and that I have engaged in a good, 
a just, and a glorious cause, — a cause which sooner ok 

LATER, MUST AND WILL PREVAIL, AND BY A TIMELY REFORM, 
SAVE THIS COUNTRY FROM DESTRUCTION.’’ 

“ SENTENCE. 

“ The Lord Justice Clerk and Lords Commissioners of Justiciary 
having considered the foregoing Verdict, whereby the Assize, all in one 
voice, Find the Pannel Guilty of the Crimes libelled—the said 
Lords, in respect of the said Verdict, in terms of an Act passed in the 
25th year of his present Majesty, entitled ‘ an Act for the more 
effectual Transportation of Felons and other offenders in that part of 
Great Britain called Scotland,’ Ordam and Adjudge , that the said 
Thomas Muir be Transported beyond Seas to such place as his Ma¬ 
jesty, with the advice of his Privy Council, shall declare and appoint, 
and that for the space of Fourteen Years from this date; with 
certification to him, if after being so transported he shall return to, 


112 


and be found at large, within any part of Great Britain, during the 
said fourteen years, without some lawful cause, and be thereby legally 
convicted, he shall suffer Death, as in cases of Felony, without benefit 
of Clergy, by the law of England—and Ordain the said Thomas Muir 
to he carried back to the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, therein to be detained 
till he is delivered over, for being so transported, for which this shall 
he to all concerned a sufficient warrant. 

(Signed) Robert M‘Queen.” 


No. II. 


Copy Letter, Rev. Wm. Dun, Minister of Kirkintilloch , to Mr. Muir. 


My Dear Sir, —The unanimous wish of the Session of Cadder, 
and I am desired to say, the prevailing wish of the people of Cadder, 
is, to have the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper dispensed among them 
this season;—of this they have desired me to inform you, hoping it 
will meet with your approbation. The Presbytery of Glasgow is to 
be advised of it on Wednesday first, and requested to appoint a day 
for the purpose, and the fourth Sabbath of July has been thought of 
by some. As an ordinance of our holy religion, it is surely proper 
—in other respects it may do good, and can do no harm. 

To have your approbation of this design before the meeting of 
Presbytery, would be agreeable to the Elders, and also to him who 
has the pleasure to be, 

Dear Sir, 

With respect, 

Your most humble Servant, 

Wm. Dun. 


Kirkintilloch, June 8, 1792. 


No. III. 

Answer by Mr. Muir. 

Dear Sir, —The proposed celebration of the Sacrament of the 
Lord’s Supper, in the parish of Cadder, is a measure to which I cor¬ 
dially give my highest approbation. Whatever political opinion may 
be entertained by different parties, in this instance, I should consider 
their interference as a crime of the deepest guilt.* I therefore hope, 
that upon all sides there will be universal unanimity. No exertion 
upon my part shall be wanting, to render every thing convenient for 
the Ministers who may attend.-)- 

You are, however, sensible, that from the various altercations which 
have lately occurred, much of the utility of the measure will depend 
upon a prudent choice of these Ministers. I could wish that gentle¬ 
men, obnoxious to no party, should be invited, whose public minis¬ 
trations will not be associated in the minds of the people with prior 

* To the scandal of the Church of Scotland, political animosity, at this time, 
frequently displayed itself from the pulpit! 

f Mr. Muir generally entertained the Ministers at Huntershill. 




113 


political conduct—whom they will regard solely as the Ministers of 
religion, and not as the partisans of any particular party. Upon this 
subject I beg your advice. I value the interests of religion, and I 
consider this to be to them of the highest moment. 

Returning you my sincere thanks for your attention to the parish, 
in a matter of such superior importance, I remain, 

Dear Sir, 

Yours most respectfully, 

Edinburgh, 11th June, 1792. THOMAS MuiR. 

Rev. Mr. Wm. Dun. 


No. IV. 

Original List of Assize, or of the 45 Jurymen, from whom the Lord 
Justice Clerk “ selected ” the 15 who sat on the Trial , shewing the 
order in which these 15 were selected. 

1 Sir John Clerk of Pennycuick, Baronet 
Sir William Dick of Prestonfield, Baronet 
Sir John Inglis of Cramond, Baronet 
Sir Archibald Hope of Craighall, Baronet 

1 5 Sir James Fowlis of Collington, Baronet 

Sir Philip Ainslie of Comley-Bank 
Charles Watson of Saughton 
James Forrest of Comiston 
Thomas Craig of Riccarton 

2 10 Captain John Inglis of Auchindinny 

3 John Wauchope of Edm on stone 

4 John Balfour younger of Pilrig 
David Johnston of Bavelaw 
John Davie of Gaviside 

5 15 Andrew Wauchope of Niddry Marishal 

6 John Trotter of Mortonhall 

7 Gilbert Lines of Stow 
John Davidson of Ravelrigg 

8 James Rochied of Inverleith 

20 John Newton of Curriehill 

James Calderwood Durham of Polton 
Thomas Wright of Greenhill 
James Gillespie of Spyelaw 
Thomas Sivewright of South-house 
25 James Kerr of Woodburn 

9 John Alves of Dalkeith, portioner 
Patrick Pridie, hatter in Edinburgh 
Thomas Brown, bookseller there 
Andrew Smith, perfumer there 

30 James Charles, hosier there 

Alexander Inglis, merchant there 
William Pattison, merchant there 
William Cooper, upholsterer there 
Andrew Ramsay, slater there. 



114 


35 Thomas Duncan, bookseller there 

10 William Dairymple, merchant there 
Francis Buchan, merchant there . 
James Mansfield, banker there 

11 Donald Smithy banker there 

12 40 James Dickson , bookseller there 

Samuel Paterson, merchant there 

13 George Kinnear , banker there 

14 Andrew Forbes , merchant there 

15 John Horner , merchant there 

45 Alexander Wallace, banker there. 


No. V. 

List of Witnesses for the Crown. 

1 John Brown, weaver at Lennoxtoun, parish of Campsie, and 
county of Stirling. 

John Spier, weaver at Lennoxtoun aforesaid. 

William Robertson, excise-officer there. 

Francis Clark, calico-printer at Lennox Mill, parish and county 
aforesaid. 

5 Alexander Johnston, bleacher at Kincaid Printfield, Campsie 
aforesaid. 

Henry Freeland, weaver in Kirkintilloch. 

William Muir, weaver there. 

John Scott, wright there. 

Robert Weddel, weaver there. 

10 James Baird, hosier there. 

The Rev. Mr. William Dunn, minister of Kirkintilloch. 

John Scott, weaver there. 

William Knox, weaver there. 

James Muir, student of divinity, residing at Campsie. 

15 Anne Fisher, servant, or late servant, to Mr. John Carlisle, Col¬ 
lector of the Cess in Glasgow. 

Thomas Wilson, barber in Glasgow. 

William Reid, bookseller and stationer there. 

James Brash, bookseller and stationer there. 

David Blair, manufacturer in Glasgow. 

20 John Muir, senior, late hat-manufacturer, presently residing there. 
John Barclay, residing in the parish of Calder, in the county of 
Lanark, and one of the elders of said parish. 

The Rev. Mr. James Lapslie, minister of Campsie. 

James Campbell, writer to the signet. 

James Denholm, writer in Edinburgh. 

25 Hugh Bell, brewer there, 

John Buchanan, baker in Canongate of Edinburgh. 

Mr. John Morthland, advocate. 

William Skirving of Strathruddy, residing in Edinburgh. 
Lieutenant-Colonel William Dalrymple of Fordell. 



115 


30 Mr. Robert Forsyth, advocate. 

Richard Fowler, student of medicine, residing in Edinburgh. 

John Pringle, Esq. Sheriff-depute of the county of Edinburgh. 
William Scott, Procurator-fiscal of the said county of Edinburgh. 
Joseph Mack, writer in Edinburgh. 

35 Sir James Colquhoun of Luss, Baronet, Sheriff-depute of the shire 
of Dumbarton. 

William Honyman, Esq. Sheriff-depute of the shire of Lanark. 
Harry Davidson, Esq. Sheriff-substitute of the county of Edinburgh. 
George Williamson, messenger in Edinburgh. 

Mr. James Carmichael, commander of the Justice hulk, in the 
service of the Board of Customs. 

40 William Ross, Esq. one of the Justices of Peace for the county of 
W 7 igton. 


No. VI. 

List of Exculpatory Witnesses for Mr. Muir. 

1 William Riddle, baker in Glasgow. 

John Hamilton, manufacturer there. 

David Dale, junior, manufacturer there. 

Basil Ronald of Broomlone, there. 

5 Alexander Park, writer there. 

George Weddel, manufacturer there. 

John Russel, merchant in Gallowgate there. 

John Brock, manufacturer there. 

John Wilson, shoemaker in Gorbals of Glasgow. 

10 John Lockhart, mason there. 

Walter Hart, heritor in Tradeston, Glasgow. 

Hugh Moodie, spirit-dealer in Glasgow. 

James Cooper, shoemaker there. 

John Gray, manufacturer there. 

]5 Daniel M‘Arthur, one of the masters of the Grammar-school, 
Glasgow. 

James Richardson, senior, merchant there. 

William Clydesdale, cabinet-maker there. 

John Tennant, brewer there. 

George Bell, junior, manufacturer there. 

20 George Stayley, manufacturer there. 

Robert M‘Kinlay, print-cutter in Mr. Fulton’s employment, near 
Paisley. 

William Orr, junior, manufacturer in Paisley. 

James Craig, manufacturer there. 

James Gemmel, merchant there. 

25 William Muir, Fisherrow there. 

Hamilton Ballantyne, Storrie street there. 

James Muir, weaver, Shuttle street there. 

John Buchanan, foreman at Kincaid printfield, Campsie. 

Robert Henrie, printer there. 



116 


30 Patrick Horn, printer there. 

Smollet M‘Lintock, block-cutter there. 

William Henry of Borrowstown, parish Baklernock. 

James M‘Gibbon, printer at Kincaid printfield. 

John Freeland, distiller in Kirkintilloch. 

35 Andrew Rochead, younger, of Duntiblae Mill, Kirkintilloch. 
Robert Boak, surgeon in Kirkintilloch. 

John Edmund, print-cutter, Kincaid printfield. 

Robert Millar, weaver in Cambuslang. 

The Rev. Mr. William Dunn, minister of Kirkintilloch. 

40 David Wallace, late servant to James Muir of Huntershill, now to 
James Stark of Adamslie* 

Robert Scott, weaver in Kirkintilloch. 

Archibald Binnie, type-founder, Edinburgh. 

Charles Salter, brewer in Edinburgh. 

Peter Wood, teacher in Portsburgh. 

45 John Buchanan, baker in Canongate. 

--- Bell, tobacconist, Canongate. 

William Skirving, Edinburgh. 

Maurice Thomson, starch-maker there. 

Andrew Wilson, brewer in Portsburgh. 

50 John Smith, weaver, Lothian Road. 

Peter Hardie, brewer in Portsburgh. 

Colonel William Dalrymple of Fordell. 

William Johnston, Esq. Edinburgh. 

The Right Hon. Lord Daer. 

55 -Newton, residing at St. Patrick’s Square, Edinburgh. 


No. VII. 

Declaration of Mr. Muir before the Sheriff. 

At Edinburgh, the 2d of January, 1793. 

The which day compeared, in presence of John Pringle, Esq. 
Advocate, his Majesty’s Sheriff-depute of the shire of Edinburgh, 
Thomas Muir , Esq. Advocate; who being examined by the Sheriff, 
and being interrogated, Whether or not the declarant, in the month of 
November last, was in the towns of Kirkintilloch, Lennoxtown of 
Campsie, or Milltown of Campsie ? Declares, That he declines 
answering any questions in this place, as he considers a declaration 
of this kind, obtained in these circumstances, to be utterly inconsist¬ 
ent with the constitutional rights of a British subject: That he has 
solemnly maintained this principle in pleading for others in a criminal 
court; and that, when it comes to be applied to his own particular 
case, as at present, he will not deviate from it. Declares, That he 
neither composed, published, nor circulated books or pamphlets, 
inflammatory or seditious: That in public and private, he always 
advised, and earnestly entreated those who might be engaged in the 
prosecution of a Constitutional Reform, in the representation of the 
people in the House of Commons, to adopt measures mild but firm, 
moderate but constitutional; and that he has always inculcated upon 





117 


all whom he may have addressed upon any occasion, that there was 
no other mode of accomplishing a Constitutional Reform in the repre¬ 
sentation of the people in the House of Commons, hut by the mode 
of respectful and Constitutional Petitions to that House, for that 
purpose; and that he did not doubt but the wisdom of that House 
would listen to the voice of the people, when thus constitutionally 
presented. And being shown three numbers of a paper, intituled, 
The Patriot, the first dated “ Tuesday, April 17, 1792 the second 
dated “ Tuesday, June 12and the third, “ Tuesday, July 10,” 
without mention of the year; and being interrogated, if he gave these 
pamphlets to William Muir, weaver in Kirkintilloch, and eight other 
numbers of the same publication ? Declares, that he adheres to the 
principles which he has mentioned in the preceding part of this decla¬ 
ration, and declines answering the question. And being shown a 
book, intituled, “ The Works of Thomas Paine, Esq.” and interrogated, 
if he did not give said book to Henry Freeland, weaver in Kirkintil¬ 
loch, and Preses of the Reform Society there? Declares, That he 
adheres to his principle, and declines answering the question. And 
being shown a pamphlet, intituled, “ A Declaration of Rights,” and 
an “ Address to the People ;” and interrogated, Whether or not he 
gave the aforesaid pamphlet to the said Henry Freeland ? Declares, 
That he declines answering, upon the aforesaid principle. And being 
interrogated, Whether or not he gave to the aforesaid Henry Freeland, 
a book, intituled, “ Flower on the French Constitution ?” Declares, 
That he declines answering the question, upon the aforesaid principle ; 
and all the before-mentioned books are marked as relative hereto, of 
this date. And being interrogated, Whether or not the declarant 
was a member of the Convention which met at Edinburgh, in the 
month of December last, styling themselves the Convention of the 
Associated Friends of the People, and produced to that meeting a 
paper, intituled, “ Address from the Society of United Irishmen in 
Dublin, to the Society for Reform in Scotland, 23d November, 1792,” 
and moved, that the thanks of the meeting should be returned to that 
Society for said Address ? Declares and declines answering the ques¬ 
tion, upon the aforesaid principle. All this he declares to be truth. 

(Signed) Thomas Muir. 

John Pringle. 


No. VIII. 

Declaration o/ 1 George Williamson. 

At Edinburgh, 10th August, 1793. 

George Williamson, messenger in Edinburgh, declares, That 
on Friday the 2d of August instant, he received a warrant of the 
Court of Justiciary, for bringing the person of Mr. Thomas Muir, 
younger of Huntershill, from the prison of Stranraer to the prison of 
Edinburgh. In consequence of which he went to Stranraer, and 
arrived there in the morning of Sunday the 4th instant, when he 
received the person of the said Thomas Muir; and he also received 
from Mr. Kerr, one of the Magistrates of Stranraer, a parcel, sealed, 



118 


and intituled, “ Papers belonging and found on Mr. Thomas Muir, 
W. R. J. P.” And which packet was sealed with the seal of the 
burgh of Stranraer, and also with two seals, which he now hears Mr. 
Muir declare to be his; and which parcel he now exhibits, with the 
seals entire. 

And the foresaid parcel having been opened in presence of the said 
Sheriff-substitute, Hugh Warrender, Esq.* Mr. William Scott, Procu¬ 
rator-fiscal of the shire of Edinburgh, George Williamson, messenger 
in Edinburgh, and Joseph Mack, writer, Sheriff-Clerk’s Office ; and 
also in presence of Mr. Thomas Muir, who admitted that this was 
the parcel containing the articles belonging to him, which were sealed 
up by the Magistrates of Stranraer, and to which he then affixed his 
seals, and which he observed to be entire, previous to its being opened 
in his presence ; The same was found to contain :— 

1. Ten copies of a pamphlet, intituled, “ Proceedings of the 
Society of United Irishmen of Dublin. Dublin, printed by 
order of the Society, 1793.” 

2. A printed copy of the trial, at large, of Samuel Bushby, and 
Judith his wife. 

3. Twenty-nine copies of a printed paper, intituled, “ United 
Irishmen of Dublin, 7th June, 1793,” being an Address from 
the Catholic Committee, to their Catholic Countrymen. 

4. Five copies of another printed paper, being “ Resolutions of 
the Society of United Irishmen, held on the 15th of July.” 

5. Twenty-two copies of a paper, purporting to be an abstract 
of the trial of Francis Graham, Esq. one of his Majesty’s 
Justices of Peace for the county of Dublin, on the 9th July, 
1793, before the Hon. Baron Power. 

6. A printed copy of an Act to prevent tumultuous risings, &c. 
of the 27th Geo. III. printed Dublin, 1787. 

7. Eighty-four copies of a printed paper, dated, “ Rath Coffy, 
1st July, 1793containing a quotation from Milton, on the 
liberty of unlicensed printing. 

8. Letter, signed J. Muir, dated Glasgow, 21st July, 1793, 
beginning with, Dear Sir, but having no address. 

9. Letter, signed Thomas Muir, and addressed to Captain 
George Towers, of the American ship the Hope, from Balti¬ 
more, care of Messrs. Cunningham & Co. merchants, Belfast, 
and dated Dublin, 27th July, 1793. 

10. A Red Turkey pocket-book, containing: 

1. A passport from the Department of Paris, in favour of 
Citizen Thomas Muir, dated 23d April, 1793, having 
upon the back an indorsement, dated 5th May, 1793. 

2. Receipt by A. M‘Dougal to Mr. Muir, for 900 livres, for 
his passage in the cabin of the ship from Havre de Grace 
to the Port of New York, dated Havre de Grace, 16th 
May, 1793. 


* Afterwards Crown Agent for Scotland. 


119 


3. Certificate that Thomas Muir has been duly elected one of 
the members of the Society of United Irishmen of Dublin, 
dated 11th January, 1793, signed Archibald Hamilton 
Rowan, Secretary. 

4. Sealed letter, directed, “ The Rev. Thomas Fische Palmer, 
Edinburgh.” The seal, a Cap of Liberty, over a Fleur de Lis, 
motto, Ca Ira . 

5. Ditto, directed, “ Norman M‘Leod, Esq. M.P. Scotland.” 

6. Ditto, directed, “ To Mrs. M‘Cormick, at Dr. M‘Cormick’8, 
St. Andrews, Scotland.” 

7. Another passport, of the Department of Calais, in favour of 
citizen Thomas Muir, dated 15th January, 1793. 

8. Passport of the Commissary of the Section of the Thuilleries, 
in favour of citizen Thomas Muir, dated 4th May, 1793. 

9. Declaration of Residence, dated 3d April, 1793, in favour of 
Thomas Muir. 

10. Letter, signed D. Stewart, dated No. 52, Frith-street, Soho, 
London, February 1. 

1st. (Addressed) John Hurford Stone, Esq. or Thomas Muir, 
Esq. Advocate, No. 99, Palais Royal, Paris. 

11. Letter, signed James Campbell, dated No. 10, St. Andrew’s 
Square, Edinburgh, 26th January, 1793 : addressed to Thomas 
Muir, Esq. younger of Huntershill. 

12. Letter, signed D. Stewart, dated 52, Frith-street, January 30 : 
addressed, Thomas Muir, Esq. Advocate, to the care of John 
Hurford Stone, Esq. Paris. 

13. A letter, signed W. Skirving, without date, addressed to 
Thomas Muir, Esq. younger of Huntershill. 

No. IX. 

Copy Certificate of Society of United Irishmen of Dublin. 

I hereby certify that Thomas Muir has been duly elected; and 
having taken the Test, provided in the Constitution, has been admitted 
a Member of this Society. 

(Signed) Archibald Hamilton Rowan, Sec. 

No. 205. Jan. 1], 1793. 

On the margin of the original, is the figure of a harp, with this 
motto, “ It is new strung, and shall be heard." 

No. X. 

Passport at Paris. 

ItepuUique Francaise—Departement de Paris. 

Passport delivre en execution de la Loi du 7 Decembre, 1792, l’an premier de la 
Republique Francaise. 

Vu 1’avis du Conseil general de la Commune de Paris, laissez passer 
le citoyen Thomas Muir, ailant a Philadelphie, domicilie a Paris, 


120 


municipalite de Paris, departement de Paris, natif de Ecosse, homme 
de loi, age de vingt huit ans, taille de 5 pieds 9 pouces, cheveux et 
sourcils chatain, yeux bleux, nez aquilin, bouche moyenne, menton 
roud, front haut, visage long et plein,—pretez-lui aide et assistance, 
au besoin. 

Fait en directoire, le 23 Avril mil sept cent quatre vingt treize: 
l’an deuxeime de la Republique Francaise; et a ledit citoyen Muir 
signe avec nous administrateurs composant le Directoire du Departe¬ 
ment de Paris. 

(Approbatif) Thomas Muir. 

Dubois. 

E. J. B. Maillard. 

Le Blauif. 

Nicoleau, Presid. 

Vu par nous Ministres des Affaires Etrangeres. A Paris, le 29 
Avril fan 2’me de la Republique. 

Le Brun, 

i Maille, Garat, Gr. 

Translation. 

Passport delivered in execution of the law, of the 7th December, 1792, first year 
of the French Republic. 

Having seen the recommendation of the Council General, the 
Commune of Paris, permit citizen Thomas Muir to proceed on his 
way to Philadelphia, domiciled at Paris, municipality of Paris, depart¬ 
ment of Paris, native of Scotland, a lawyer, 28 years of age, 5 feet 9 
inches high, his hair and eye-lashes of a chesnut colour, blue eyes, 
aquiline nose, small mouth, round chin, high forehead, long and full 
face. Send him aid and assistance if in want. 

Executed in the Directory, 23d April, 1793, second year of the 
French Republic. Citizen Muir signs this with us administrators, 
composing the Directory of the Department of Paris. 

(Approved) Signed as above. 

Seen by us Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Paris, 29th April, second 
year of Republic. 

Signed as above. 

No. XI. 

Letter from Mr. Muir to Mr. Campbell, Writer to the Signet , 
Edinburgh. 

Paris, Jan. 23, 1793. 

Dear Sir,— I wrote you from Calais and from Paris, and impa¬ 
tiently expect your answer. Write me fully about my private affairs, 
but about nothing else. Whenever you or my friends judge it expe¬ 
dient or proper, I will immediately return; but I cannot leave Paris 
without regret. I am honoured by the notice and friendship of an 
amiable and distinguished circle; and to a friend of humanity, it 
affords much consolation to find according feelings in a foreign land. 



121 


Present my best wishes to all our friends,—to Messrs. Johnston, 
Skirving, Moffat, Buchanan, &c. I entreat you to find means to send 
over the numbers of the two Edinburgh Newspapers. The London 
papers come here but irregularly. One wishes to know what is going 
on at home; but tell my friends, it is only through the channel of 
Newspapers, I can receive that intelligence. Write me under the 
following cover, Au Citoyen de Coudile , Hotel de Toulon , No. 1 , rue 
des Fosses du Temple. Communicate this address to all my friends. 
Inform them no letter can reach me, if the postage is not paid in 
Edinburgh. I am, 

Dear Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

Thomas Muir. 

P. S. My compliments to Mr. Dick; entreat him to take the 
charge of my things. 


No. XII. 

Second Letter from Mr. Muir to Mr. Campbell. 

Dear Sir,— I have written you frequently: whenever you think 
it proper I shall return. At the same time, honoured as I am by the 
civilities and attention of many amiable characters, it would be with 
reluctance I could quit Paris for a month or two. About my private 
business write me, but not a word on any other subject. Remember 
me to Johnstone, Skirving, Moffat, &c. Tell them no distance of 
space shall obliterate my recollection of them. WTite me punctually, 
1 entreat you. Cause them likewise write me. Omit no post. My 
address is under cover, Au Citoyen Coudile , Hotel de Toulon , No. 1, 
rue des Fosses de Temple . I am, 

Yours, &c. 

Thomas Muir. 

Paris, Jan. 27, 1793. 


No. XIII. 

Letter from Sir James MTntosh to Mr. Campbell. 

Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter respecting 
the business of Mr. Muir. I did not lose a moment in finding a safe 
and speedy conveyance to him at Paris for your letters, and those of 
his other friends in Scotland, sent to my care. I delayed from day to 
day, in the perpetual expectation of seeing Mr. Muir here on his 
return. It becomes now, however, necessary for me to inform you, 
that he is not yet come; and considering the extreme anxiety which 
he must have felt to return as soon as possible, I think it very probable 
that this delay ought to be ascribed to the embargo laid on the vessels 
in the ports of France, which may perhaps have rendered it impossible 
for him, though even at Calais, to make his passage to England. I 




122 


think this probability at least sufficiently great to be pleaded for a 
delay of his trial, and it is to enable you and his friends to make any 
use of it that you may think fit, that I have now thought it necessary 
to communicate this state of facts to you. I am, 

Sir, 

Yours, &c. 

James MTntosii. 

St. Charlotte Street, Portland Place, Feb. 7, 1793. 


No. XIV. 

Letter from Mr. Muir’s Father to Capt. Geo. Towers. 

Glasgow, July 21, 1793. 

Dear Sir, —I am at a very great loss how to answer your letter, as 
it’s not understood by me: if it’s the Friend that I have, if it’s he, I 
would be overjoyed to see his hand-writing, and to know what has 
become of him these three months. I thought he had been at Phila¬ 
delphia ere now, where letters are forwarded for him; and if you are 
to stay any time at Belfast, be so kind as write in course; and I will 
come over and see you and him. You can write the time you mean 
to stay. Mr. John Richardson, a son of Deacon James Richardson, 
I saw him this week at Greenock; he is to sail in the Almy of New 
York directly, and has two packets of letters for him ; and there are 
many letters wrote for him to the first people of America. Once he 
were there, he’ll get letters to General Washington; and I hope, dear 
Sir, you’ll shew him every civility in your power, which I hope some 
day gratefully to thank you for. There is a trunk also in the Almy 
for him, which Mr. Richardson will deliver into his own hand. I sin¬ 
cerely wish you a safe, pleasant, and successful voyage, and a happy 
meeting with your friends. And I remain. 

Dear Sir, 

Your most humble servant, 

J. Muir. 

If it’s the person I mean, a cousin of his, William Muir, formerly 
of Leith, is lying at Philadelphia. His ship is an American bottom. 
The loss of this young man has been a dreadful affliction to us. Please 
give our friend this letter. I honoured his draft in favour of Mr. 
Masey. He’ll get his letters at the post-office, Philadelphia. 

I hope in a year or two he can return, if he doth not love America; 
and be so good as cause him write me one line in your letter. You 
can direct it; and if he does not choose to sign it , you can put your 
initials to it. 


No. XV. 

Letterfreym T. Muir to Capt. Geo. Towers. 

Dublin, July 27, 1793. 

Dear Sir, —This day I received yours; and will be down upon 
Tuesday evening. I have taken my place in the coach for to-morrow. 



123 


I am happy to hear my friends are well. I will write them from Bel¬ 
fast. Of this you can give them information. I am, 

Dear Sir, 

Your respectful Friend, 

Thomas Muir. 

Capt. Geo. Towers, of the American ship, 
the Hope, from Baltimore, at Belfast. 


No. XVI. 

Letter from W. Skirving to D. Stewart, Esq. No. 52, Frith-street , 

Soho, London , Secretary to the Society of Friends of the People. 

Edinburgh, Sept. 2, 1793. 

Sir, —I ought to have wrote you on Saturday, to give your Society 
the means of contradicting the aspersion, which you will see by the 
accounts of Mr. Muir’s trial, has been thrown upon them. I have not 
been able to command a settled thought since the alarming issue of 
that astonishing trial. I never had a higher opinion of any person’s 
integrity, uprightness, and philanthropy; nor is it diminished, but 
increased. The feelings which I must, therefore, have had, since that 
event, will plead my excuse with men of feeling. 

In the evidence which I was called on to give, I stated the reason 
for his going to London, and that I had received a letter from Mr. 
Muir, when at London, explaining the cause of his proceeding to Paris ; 
which letter I was very sorry that I could not produce, though I had 
preserved it carefully. Being desired to state, if I could recollect, the 
reason which Mr. Muir assigned in that letter for his journey to Paris, 
I said, that it was the opinion of friends, that if Mr. Muir would go 
to Paris, he might have great influence with many to mitigate the 
sentence of the French King. These friends were taken for your 
Society; and much freedom was used, to reprobate both the Society 
of the Friends of the People in London, for presuming to send a mis¬ 
sionary into another country, and Mr. Muir, for accepting such com¬ 
mission. But I declare, upon my honour, that the thought of his being 
sent by the Society of the Friends of the People in London, never 
came into my mind. And if I expressed myself so, which it is impos¬ 
sible I could do, I expressed a falsehood, and which I am bound in 
justice to the Society, in this manner to contradict. 

Mr. Muir is behaving with astonishing manliness. 

I am, Sir, your obedient humble servant, 

W. Skirving. 


No. XVII. 

Address to the Public. 

In the different accounts which have been published of Mr. Muir’s 
trial, mention is made of my having been committed to prison for 
prevarication, or an attempt to conceal the truth. These accounts, 
in so far as they regard me, being defective, I think it incumbent upon 




124 


me, in justice to myself and my character, to present the public with 
a candid statement of the whole matter. 

Being called to the bar of the Court, and having taken the oath to 
tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I was interrogated, 
“ Has any person instructed you what you should say ?” I answered. 
None; but mentioned that several persons had desired me to tell the 
truth. I was then asked who had done so ? My answer was, that I 
did not recollect; but that no person had given me any particular 
instructions, what I alluded to having been only the general observa¬ 
tion of several persons with whom I had spoken on the subject. I was 
then questioned, when I had been cited as a witness; upon which I 
produced my summons, bearing date the 26th of August. I was again 
interrogated, if it was after the citation that I had the conversation 
referred to, and with whom I held these ? To which I replied, that 
it was both before and after citation; but, as it was only a kind of 
general instruction, I could not recollect any particular person. 

I was then ordered to withdraw; and, on being again called into 
Court, was ordered to prison for three weeks. 

This sentence not a little surprised me, as I was totally at a loss to 
guess the cause, not having been conscious of any wrong. Indeed the 
whole error (if it may be so called) was the effect of confusion and 
mistake, which were natural enough, considering my uttfcr ignorance 
of law proceedings, and that I never before had been examined as a 
witness in a Court of Justice. 

I do not mean to reflect on the Court, but to justify myself from 
the charge of prevarication, or of concealing the truth, which I had no 
idea of committing. On the contrary, it appears to me that I was to 
blame only for an over-anxiety to tell the whole truth in terms of my 
oath; for had I answered the first question in the negative, (which I 
was entitled to do, as no person had put words in my mouth,) I would 
not have had the mortification of being imprisoned. 

Conscious of the purity of my intentions, I submit my case to the 
public; and, leaving it with them to judge with candour, I have only 
further to observe, that I grieve not so much on account of my con¬ 
finement, of the injury it may do me in business, or my reputation, as 
I am sorry that, from my being rejected, Mr. Muir may be the greater 
sufferer of the two, as he was prevented from having the benefit of my 
evidence which would have tended highly to his exculpation of the 
charges against him 

John Russel.* 

Edinburgh Tolbootb, Sept. 3, 1793. 

* The Judges, in rejecting in toto the evidence of this gentleman, acted in 
defiance of every principle of law and justice. They ought to have admitted his 
evidence, leaving to the Jury to determine its credibility. See afterwards the 
debate in the House of Commons on this very point. Mr. Russel, we are happy 
to say, sulfered nothing in the estimation of the public, in consequence of the treat¬ 
ment he met with on the above occasion. He died a few years ago in affluent 
circumstances. 


125 


No. XVIII. 

ADDRESS from the SOCIETY of UNITED IRISHMEN in Dublin, to 
the DELEGATES for promoting a REFORM in SCOTLAND, which 
was brought by the Crown as evidence of Sedition against Mr. Muir, and 
which he read on his Trial. 

We take the liberty of addressing you, in the spirit of civic union, 
in the fellowship of a just and a common cause. We greatly rejoice 
that the spirit of freedom moves over the face of Scotland ; that light 
seems to break from the chaos of her internal government; and that a 
country so respectable for her attainments in science, in arts, and in 
arms ; for men of literary eminence ; for the intelligence and morality 
of her people, now acts from a conviction of the union between virtue, 
letters, and liberty; and now rises to distinction, not by a calm, con¬ 
tented, secret wish for a reform in Parliament, but by openly , actively , 
and urgently willing it, with the unity and energy of an embodied 
nation. We rejoice that you do not consider yourselves as merged 
and melted down into another country, but that in this great national 
question, you are still—Scotland,—the land where Buchanan wrote, 
and Fletcher spoke, and Wallace fought. 

Away from us and from our children those puerile antipathies so 
unworthy of the manhood of nations, which insulate individuals, as 
well as countries, and drive the citizen back to the savage ! We 
esteem and respect you. We pay merited honour to a nation in 
general well educated, and well informed, because we know that the 
ignorance of the people is the cause and effect of all civil and religious 
despotism. We honour a nation regular in their lives, and strict in 
their manners, because we conceive private morality to be the only 
secure foundation of public policy. We honour a nation eminent for 
men of genius, and we trust that they will now exert themselves, not 
so much in perusing and penning the histories of other countries, as 
in making their own a subject for the historian. May we venture to 
observe to them, that mankind have been too retrospective; canonized 
antiquity, and undervalued themselves. Man has reposed on ruins, 
and rested his head on some fragments of the temple of liberty, or at 
most amused himself in proving the measurement of the edifice, and 
nicely limiting its proportions; not reflecting that this temple is truly 
Catholic, the ample earth its area, and the arch of heaven its dome. 

We will lay open to you our hearts. Our cause is your cause.— 
If there is to be a struggle between us, let it be which nation shall be 
foremost in the race of mind ; let this be the noble animosity kindled 
between us, who shall first attain that free Constitution from which 
both are equi-distant,—who shall first be the saviour of the empire. 

The sense of both countries with respect to the intolerable abuses 
of the Constitution has been clearly manifested, and prove that our 
political situations are not dissimilar; that our rights and wrongs are 
the same. Out of 32 counties in Ireland, 29 petitioned for a reform 
in Parliament; and out of 56 of the royal burghs of Scotland, 50 
petitioned for a reform in their internal structure and Government. 
If we be rightly informed, there is no such thing as popular election 




126 


in Scotland. The people who ought to possess that weight in the 
popular scale, which might bind them to the soil, and make them cling 
to the Constitution, are now as dust in the balance, blown abroad by 
the least impulse, and scattered through other countries, merely be¬ 
cause they hang so loosely to their own. They have no share in the 
national Firm , and are aggrieved not only by irregular and illegal 
exaction of taxes ; by misrule and mismanagement of corporations; by 
misconduct of self-elected and irresponsible magistrates; by waste of 
public property; and by want of competent judicatures; but, in our 
opinion, most of all, by an inadequate parliamentary representation ,— 
for we assert, that 45 Commoners and 16 Peers, are a pitiful repre¬ 
sentation for two millions and a half of people; particularly as your 
Commoners consider themselves not as the representatives of that 
people, but of the Councils of the Burghs by whom they are elected. 

Exclusive charters in favour of Boroughs, monopolize the general 
rights of the people, and that act must be absurd which precludes all 
other towns from the power of being restored to their ancient freedom. 

We remember that heritable jurisdictions and feudal privileges, 
though expressly reserved by the Act of Union (20th art.) were set aside 
by Act of Parliament in 1746, and we think that there is much stronger 
ground at present, for restoring to the mass of the people their alien¬ 
ated rights, and to the Constitution its spirit and its integrity.* 

Look now we pray you upon Ireland. Long was this unfortunate 
island the prey of prejudiced factions and ferocious parties. The rights 
or rather duties of conquest were dreadfully abused, and the Catholic 
religion was made the perpetual pretext for subjugating the state by 
annihilating the citizen, and destroying, not the religious persuasion, 
but the man ; not property, but the people. It was not till very lately 
that the part of the nation which is truly colonial, reflected that 
though their ancestors had been victorious, they themselves were now 
included in the general subjection; subduing only to be subdued, and 
trampled upon by Britain as a servile dependency. When therefore 
the Protestants began to suffer what the Catholics had suffered and 
were suffering; when, from serving as the instruments, they were 
made themselves the objects of foreign domination, then they became 
conscious they had a country ; and then they felt like Irishmen,—they 
resisted British dominion, renounced colonial subserviency, and fol¬ 
lowing the example of a Catholic Parliament, just a century before, 
they asserted the exclusive jurisdiction and legislative competency of 
this island. A sudden light from America shone through our prison. 
Our volunteers arose. The chains fell from our hands. We followed 
Grattan, the angel of our deliverance, and in 1782, Ireland ceased to 

* What an unanswerable argument to the narrow-minded anft'-reform paper 
freeholders of Scotland, who are now wasting their lungs by bawling about the 
inviolability of the Treaty of Union, as if the Treaty of Union was made purposely 
for them. The conduct of these ninnies reminds us of the conduct of the Earl of 
Nottingham, who was once, we believe, Lord Chancellor of England, and who, 
when that Treaty was in agitation, gravely declared, that the changing of the term 
England to that of Great Britain, would positively subvert all the laws of Eng- 
land!!! 


127 


be a province, and became a nation. But, with reason, should we 
despise and renounce this Revolution, as merely a transient burst 
through a bad habit; the sudden grasp of necessity in despair, from 
tyranny in distress, did we not believe that the Revolution is still in 
train; that it is less the single and shining act of 82, than a series of 
national improvements which that act ushers in and announces; that 
it is only the herald of liberty and glory, of Catholic emancipation, as 
well as Protestant independence; that, in short, this Revolution indi¬ 
cates new principles, foreruns new practices, and lays a foundation for 
advancing the whole people higher in the scale of being, and diffusing 
equal and permanent happiness. 

British supremacy changed its aspect, but its essence remained the 
same. First it was force, and on the event of the late Revolution, it 
became influence; direct hostility shifted into systematic corruption, 
silently drawing off the virtue and vigour of the island, without shock 
or explosion. Corruption that glides into every place, tempts every 
person, taints every principle, infects the political mind through all its 
relations and dependencies; so regardless of public character as to set 
the highest honours to sale, and to purchase boroughs with the price 
of such prostitution ; so regardless of public morality, as to legalize the 
licentiousness of the lowest and most pernicious gambling, and to 
extract a calamitous revenue from the infatuation and intoxication of 
the people. 

The Protestants of Ireland were now sensible that nothing could 
counteract this plan of debilitating policy, but a radical reform in the 
House of the People , and that without such reform, the Revolu¬ 
tion itself was nominal and delusive.—The wheel merely turned round, 
but it did not move forward, and they were as distant as ever from the 
goal. They resolved—they convened—they met with arms—they 
met without them—they petitioned;—but in vain ; for they were but 
a portion of the people. They then looked around and beheld their 
Catholic countrymen. Three million—we repeat it—three million 
taxed without being represented, bound by laws to which they had 
not given consent, and politically dead in their native land. The 
apathy of the Catholic mind changed into sympathy, and that begot 
an energy of sentiment and action. They had eyes, and they read. 
They had ears, and they listened. They had hearts, and they felt. 
They said, “ Give us our rights, as you value your own. Give us a 
share of civil and political liberty, the elective franchise, and the trial 
by jury. Treat us as men, and we shall treat you as brothers. Is 
taxation without representation a grievance to three millions across 
the Atlantic, and no grievance to three millions at your doors ? Throw 
down that pale of persecution which still keeps up civil war in Ireland, 
and make us one people. We shall then stand, supporting and sup¬ 
ported, in the assertion of that liberty which is due to all, and which 
all should unite to attain.” 

It was just—and immediately a principle of adhesion took place for 
the first time among the inhabitants of Ireland;—all religious per¬ 
suasions found in a political union their common duty and their 


128 


common salvation. In this Society and its affiliated Societies, the 
Catholic and the Presbyterian are at this instant holding out their 
hands and opening their hearts to each other, agreeing in principles, 
concurring in practice. We unite for immediate, ample, and substantial 
justice to the Catholics, and when that is attained, a combined exertion 
for a Reform in Parliament is the condition of our compact, and the 
seal of our communion. 

British supremacy takes alarm ! The haughty monopolists of na¬ 
tional power and common right, who crouch abroad to domineer at 
home, now look with more surprise and less contempt on this “ besotted” 
people. A new artifice is adopted, and that restless domination which 
at first, ruled as open war, by the length of the sword ; then, as covert 
corruption, by the strength of the poison; now assumes the style and 
title of Protestant Ascendancy; calls down the name of religion from 
heaven to sow discord on earth ; to rule by anarchy; to keep up dis¬ 
trust and antipathy among parties, among persuasions, among families ; 
nay to make the passions of the individuals struggle, like Cain and Abel, 
in the very home of the heart, and to convert every little paltry neces¬ 
sity that accident, indolence, or extravagance bring upon a man, into a 
pander for the purchase of his honesty and the murder of his reputation. 

We will not be the dupes of such ignoble artifices. We see this 
scheme of strengthening political persecution and state inquisition, by 
a fresh infusion of religious fanaticism ; but we will unite and we will 
be Free. Universal Emancipation with Representative Legislation is 
the polar principle which guides our Society, and shall guide it through 
all the tumult of factions and fluctuations of parties. It is not upon 
a coalition of opposition with ministry that we depend, but upon a 
coalition of Irishmen with Irishmen, and in that coalition alone we 
find an object worthy of reform, and at the same time the strength 
and sinew both to attain and secure it. It is not upon external cir¬ 
cumstances, upon the pledge of a man or a minister, we depend, but 
upon the internal energy of the Irish nation. We will not buy or 
borrow liberty from America or from France, but manufacture it our¬ 
selves, and work it up with those materials that the hearts of Irishmen 
furnish them with at home. We do not worship the British, far less 
the Irish Constitution, as sent down from heaven, but we consider it 
as human workmanship, which man has made, and man can mend. 
An unalterable Constitution, whatever be its nature , must be despotism. 
It is not the Constitution , but the People , which ought to be inviolable ; 
and it is time to recognise and renovate the rights of the English , the 
Scotch , and the Irish nations. —Rights which can neither be bought 
nor sold, granted by charter, or forestalled by monopoly, but which 
nature dictates as the birthright of all, and which it is the business of 
a Constitution to define, to enforce, and to establish. If Government 
has a sincere regard for the safety of the Constitution, let them coin¬ 
cide with the people in the speedy reform of its abuses, and not by an 
obstinate adherence to them, drive that people into Republicanism. 

We have told you what our situation was, what it is, what it ought 
to be: our end, a National Legislature; our means, an union of the 


129 


whole people. Let this union extend throughout the empire. Let 
all unite for all, or each man suffer for all. In each country let the 
people assemble in peaceful and Constitutional Convention. Let 
delegates from each country digest a plan of reform, best adapted to 
the situation and circumstances of their respective nations, and let the 
Legislature be petitioned at once, by the urgent and unanimous voice 
of Scotland, England, and Ireland. 

You have our ideas. Answer us, and that quickly. This is not a 
time to procrastinate. Your illustrious Fletcher has said, that the 
liberties of a people are not to be secured, without passing through 
great difficulties, and no toil or labour ought to be declined to pre¬ 
serve a nation from slavery. He spoke well; and we add, that it is 
incumbent on every nation who adventures into a conflict for freedom, 
to remember it is on the event (however absurdly) depends the estima¬ 
tion of the public opinion ; honour and immortality, if fortunate: if 
otherwise, infamy and oblivion. Let this check the rashness that 
rushes unadvisedly into the committal of national character, or if that 
be already made, let the same consideration impel us all to advance 
with active, not passive perseverance; with manly confidence and 
calm determination, smiling with equal scorn at the bluster of official 
arrogance, and the whisper of private malevolence, until we have 
planted the flag of Freedom on the summit, and are at once victorious 
and secure. 

(Signed) Wm. Drennan, Chairman, 

Archd. Hamilton Rowan, Secy. 


No. XIX. 

(Abridged from the Morning Chronicle and Scots Magazine , 1794. J 
BRITISH PARLIAMENT. 

HOUSE OF LORDS, JANUARY 31, 1794. 

Trials of Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer. 

Earl Stanhofe rose and said, that their Lordships would admit 
that no part of their duty was more important than that of watching 
the proceedings of the Courts below. The due administration of jus¬ 
tice was one of the most essential rights of the people, and every right 
of the people created a correspondent duty in them. The case upon 
which he was to call their Lordships’ attention was one of the strongest 
that ever occurred, if not the very strongest. Perhaps he should be 
asked if there were any precedents for the measure he was about to 
propose ; though he did not hold himself bound to find precedents, 
and though he thought it the duty of the House to make a precedent 
where justice demanded it, yet here he had precedents. In the 1st of 
William and Mary, there were no less than four Acts passed, reversing 
the unjust attainder of Alderman Cornish, of Alice Lisle, of Algernon 
Sydney, and of Lord Russell. That of Alderman Cornish originated 
in that House, and was strictly in point, as their Lordships would see 
by a reference to the journals. 

I 



130 


The proceedings in the late trials against Mr. Muir and Mr. Palmer, 
before the Lords of Justiciary in Scotland, were so extraordinary that 
it became their Lordships, by a regard to the sacred character of jus¬ 
tice, to inquire into them—they were contrary to the principles of 
immutable justice, and directly in opposition to resolutions of that 
House. In the impeachment of Mr. Hastings, their Lordships had 
made, in the year 1790, no less than four resolutions, which shewed 
their sense of principles which belonged to no one nation, and to no 
one tribunal, but were of the essence of justice. The principle was, 
that when a man was put upon his trial, no charge could be brought 
forward in evidence which was not set forth in the original indictment. 

Now, if this principle was applied in the case of Mr. Hastings, who 
was to have months, and even years, to prepare his defence, how much 
more forcibly did it apply to Mr. Muir, who was to answer on the 
moment ? But what would their Lordships say when they heard that 
facts were brought forward in evidence not charged in the indictment, 
“because,” forsooth, said the Lord Advocate, “if he had enumerated 
all the acts of the defendant in the indictment, it would have covered 
the walls of the Court.” This was not all,—Mr. Muir was obliged, 
by the practice of the Court, to give in a list of the witnesses the day 
before the trial. Then, after seeing all that he meant to prove in his 
justification, the Prosecutor was suffered to bring forth new facts 
against him, of which no notice had been given him, under the pretext 
of their being collateral to the main point, and for which he could not, 
even if he had had a hundred witnesses in Court that could refute 
them, have adduced any one of them, because their names had not 
been given in the day before. By this means the gentleman was 
entrapped; he begged that his words might be attended to. The 
gentleman was entrapped in a manner most outrageous to all ideas of 
common justice.—There were other circumstances in this trial equally 
at variance with all the principles which we reverenced. Challenges 
were made of several of the Jurors upon grounds that ought to have 
been irresistible; nay one of the Jurors felt the force of the objection 
so strongly, that he requested permission to withdraw—this was over¬ 
ruled. if all this was the law of Scotland, which certainly he could 
not take upon himself to deny, he would only observe that Scotland 
had no more liberty than it had under the race of the Stuarts. All 
that he contended for, was that they should inquire into the trials: he 
meant to propose no censure in the first place; he desired only that 
the sentences passed against these persons should not be put into exe¬ 
cution until their Lordships should have time to inquire, for nothing 
was so clear that they ought to prevent the evil consequences of these 
harsh and indiscreet proceedings, not to suffer them first to take place, 
and then find that they were wrong. He had some similar motions 
in his hand, for the four cases that had already occurred in Scotland, 
of Mr. Muir, Mr. Palmer, Mr. Skirving, and Mr. Margarott. He 
concluded with moving the first, That our humble Address be pre¬ 
sented to his Majesty, humbly to represent to his Majesty, that some 
time ago Thomas Muir, Esq. was tried on a criminal prosecution be- 


131 


fore the Lords Justiciary of Scotland; in consequence of which sen¬ 
tence of transportation beyond seas for fourteen years had been passed 
upon him.—.That this House were forthwith to take into their consi¬ 
deration the proceedings had on the said trial and sentence. And, 
therefore, praying his Majesty not to carry into execution the said 
sentence, until the House had made the proposed inquiry. 

The Earl of Mansfield said, that a motion of a more singular 
nature he had never heard. On an attack on a Court to which he had 
the honour to belong, he could not give a silent vote; though the 
Noble Earl had not concluded with a motion of censure, yet in lan¬ 
guage which he must think was intemperate and unprovoked, he had 
thrown forth charges of a severe and unfounded nature. In regard to 
the trial, the persons had been convicted by a verdict of their country. 
Their Lordships were bound to consider the verdict as legal, until an 
appeal came before them; but no appeal, it might be said, could come 
from the courts below in criminal cases; true, but there was a way of 
bringing every such question before the cognizance of Parliament, and 
God forbid that the day should ever come, when the conduct of Judges 
in the administration of justice was not subject, in the proper form, to 
the strict revision of Parliament. The only question which could 
come before them, was, whether the sentence, as passed by the Judges 
in the cases alluded to, was legal, and whenever that question should 
be brought before them, he pledged himself to shew that the sentence 
was strictly legal in every point of view. 

The Earl of Lauderdale said, he had endeavoured to persuade 
the Noble Lord not to bring forward the important question in a way 
in which, by the orders of the Plouse, it could not be entertained; and 
even now he hoped he would withdraw it, only that it might be brought 
forward in a more regular way; if he persisted in it, he should only 
decline voting at all. But as the motion was made, he would just say, 
that it was no wonder that these trials had produced so much public 
emotion, and had so warmly interested the feelings of mankind, since, 
that men in Scotland should be transported to Botany Bay for four¬ 
teen years, for what in England had raised others to the most splendid 
situations, was certainly calculated to excite surprise and even more 
unpleasant sensations. Nor would it escape their observation, that 
there must be something extremely harsh in the law of Scotland which 
should inflict a punishment of fourteen years’ transportation for the 
same offence, which, in England, would subject a man to no more 
than twelve months’ imprisonment. That, undoubtedly, there were 
extraordinary proceedings on the trial, no man who had read the dif¬ 
ferent accounts could deny; and he concluded with saying, that if the 
Noble Lord should take the opinion of the House, he certainly would 
not vote against him. 

The Earl of Coventry said a few words against the motion. 

The Lord Chancellor said, that in the situation in which he 
stood, it became him to deliver a few words on the most extraordinary 
motion he had ever heard. For, granting even that there had been, 
in the cases alluded to, a mis-trial, that any doubts were entertained 


of the legality of any part of their proceedings, that the verdict of the 
Jury had not been justified by the evidence, that the conduct of the 
Judges had in any degree been founded in misapprehension of the 
case, that there had been a misapplication of the law, or in short, if 
there had been any thing irregular in the trial, verdict or sentence, 
there was a remedy provided by the Constitution, for bringing the 
whole into revision. But who ever heard of a single instance of an 
address being moved for in this House, to pray his Majesty to post¬ 
pone the execution of a sentence ? Nothing was more certain than 
that human judgment might err; and not a year, not an assize, not a 
term, almost passed, without instances of cases being brought into that 
state, when one Judge was happy to have his judgment revised by his 
brother^, and when, by more deliberate discussion of a question, any 
error into which he might have fallen might be corrected to the ease 
and remedy of the parties concerned. Cruel and hard would be the 
situation of a Judge, if such means were not given him, of retracting 
any misapprehension or error into which he had fallen. What was 
the way in which this was to be done ? By the person, who stood 
convicted by a Jury of his country of a crime, humbling himself be¬ 
fore the throne, and presenting a petition stating the hardship of his 
case, and praying his Majesty to interfere with the gracious exercise 
of his prerogative. It certainly was not unfit that a person upon whom 
a verdict of guilty was so passed by his country, should so humble 
himself before the throne; in truth it was not humbling—it was be¬ 
coming, that a man against whom such a sentence lay should present 
his case in terms of supplication. Was it so here? Had any petition 
been presented by the persons tried in Scotland ? No such thing. 
He could take upon him to say, that such was the anxiety of those 
whose duty it is to advise his Majesty in that to which his own dis¬ 
position so constantly leads him, for the clear ascertainment of the 
legality of the sentences in question, that though no petition had been 
presented by the parties, an inquiry had been made; and he would 
take upon himself to say, that when this paper should be laid before 
their Lordships, they would see that no pains had been spared to 
determine whether any circumstances had occurred either of irregu¬ 
larity in the trials, or of illegality in the sentence. It was not neces¬ 
sary for him to volunteer the production of this paper, but if ever their 
Lordships should think proper to entertain an inquiry into the case, 
he would pledge himself that they should find the conduct of the 
Judges of Scotland had been such as their Lordships would always 
desire to find in men intrusted with functions so important. He 
avoided any more sounding and extravagant terms of praise, because 
he wished not to enter into eulogiums that might be thought over¬ 
strained. 

The Noble Earl had referred to resolutions of that House, as a 
ground for arraigning the proceedings on the trials. The Scotch 
Judges neither could know officially, nor be guided by any resolutions 
of that House; they could act only by the practice of their own 
Court. The Lord Advocate had a right to prove facts collateral with 


1 S3 


the main fact, though not specially stated in the indictment. In the 
same way with respect to the challenges, nothing could be more absurd 
than the grounds on which they were made. To challenge jurors 
because they had entered into associations, was in fact to challenge all 
that was respectable in the country, for almost every man of rank or 
respect, had at that time associated for the purpose of supporting the 
Constitution. In short, all the objections which had been made on 
these trials properly over-ruled, were something in the nature of the 
speech of that man, who, being put on his trial, said he would swear 
the peace against the judge, for he had a design upon his life. 

Earl Stanhope said, that he had not heard the only thing that 
could induce him upon any occasion to withdraw a motion—an argu¬ 
ment. The Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack confessed, 
that there might be a mis-trial, and that in case of a mis-trial there 
was a legal remedy. And what was the legal remedy ? That a per¬ 
son unjustly condemned must humble himself before the throne. And 
this is the boasted justice of England ! He trusted that no man would 
be base enough, who felt conscious innocence, to humble himself; nor 
was it very becoming the dignity either of national justice, or even of 
royal prerogative, to expect of an injured man such submission. He 
had done however good by his motion, for he had drawn from the 
Noble and Learned Lord on the Woolsack a declaration, that, on the* 
question being represented in the shape of a petition, the remedy 
would be obtained. (The Lord Chancellor in an under voice, signified 
his dissent from tins statement of his words.) The Noble Lord then 
means to say, that there will be no remedy; he advises a petition, but 
declares at the same time that a petition is to be of no avail. My 
Lords, I persist in my motion, and I shall divide the House if I stand 
alone; I do not care with how many or with how few I divide, but I 
will never give up the principle, that it is better to prevent an evil, 
than afterwards to repent of it. 

The question was then put on the motion for the Address on the 
case of Mr. Muir, and as Earl Stanhope persisted in taking their sense 
by a vote, they divided. 

Content, ... 1 

Not Contents, . . 49 

The other motions were then put and negatived. 

PROTEST. 

Die Veneris , 31 st Jan. 1794. 

The Order of the Day being read for the Lords to be summoned, 

It was moved, That the several Entries in the Journal of the 8th, 
10th, and 13th of June, 1689, relative to the bill intitled, “ An Act 
for reversing the attainder of Henry Cornish, Esq. late Alderman of 
the City of London,” be now read. 

The same were accordingly read by the Clerk. 

Then it was moved, That an humble address be presented to his 
Majesty, humbly to represent to his Majesty, that this House has been 
informed that Thomas Muir, Esq. who was tried before the High 


134 


Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh, in the month of August last, upon 
a charge of sedition, has been condemned and sentenced to he trans¬ 
ported beyond seas for the space of fourteen years; and further to 
represent to his Majesty, that this House intends to proceed without 
delay to examine the circumstances of such condemnation and of such 
sentence; and therefore humbly to beseech his Majesty, that the said 
Thomas Muir, Esq. may not he transported beyond seas, until this 
House shall have had sufficient time to make such examination. 

Which being objected to, after debate, 

The question being put thereupon, it was resolved in the negative. 

T ,, (E. Stanhope, Content, 1 

’ "(E. Stair. Not Contents, 49 

Whereupon the following protest was entered on the Journals by 
Earl Stanhope. 

Dissentient. 1st, Because the attending to the due administration 
of justice, and the watching over the conduct of the various Courts in 
this kingdom, is one of the most important branches of the business 
of this House, and is at all times also one of its most essential duties. 

2dly. Because it obviously appears to be proper to examine into 
the justice and legality of a sentence, before it is executed, and not to 
permit it to be executed first, and then to examine into its justice and 
legality afterwards. 

3dly. Because, for want of such timely interference on the part of 
this House, it has formerly happened, that, within a short time, no 
less than four unjust and illegal judgments were actually carried into 
execution, as appears from the respective attainders of the innocent 
sufferers having been afterwards reversed and made void (when it was 
too late) by four Acts of Parliament, made and passed in the first year 
of the reign of their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary, 
namely, in the cases of Alderman Cornish, Alice Lisle, Algernon 
Sidney, and Lord Russell. 

4thly. Because it is contrary to the first and immutable principles 
of natural justice, that any thing to the prejudice of a defendant should 
be brought before a jury in a criminal prosecution, that is “ only col¬ 
lateral, not in issue, nor necessary in the conclusion/’ 

5thly. Because it is not (nor ought to be) competent for the Pro¬ 
secutor to produce any evidence to support any matter that is not 
charged in the indictment; that is to say, distinctly and precisely 
charged, and not by mere epithets or general words, such as oppres¬ 
sion, sedition, vexation, or the like. 

6thly. Because in like manner it is not (nor ought to be) competent 
for a Prosecutor to produce any evidence to prove any crime to have 
been committed by a defendant, in any other particular than that 
wherein it is, in the indictment expressly charged to have been com-* 
mitted. 

7thly. Because no such proceedings as those above stated, nor any 
of them, can he justified under pretence, that “ if it had been necessary 
to specify in the indictment all the facts agaiust the defendant, the 



135 


indictment would have covered, by its magnitude, the walls of the 
Court.” And, 

8thly. Because in one year of the trial of Warren Hastings, Esq. 
namely in the year 1790, there were no less than four decisions of 
the House of Lords upon this subject, viz. on the twenty-fifth day of 
February, when the Lords resolved, 

That the Managers for the Commons be not admitted to give evidence of the 
unfitness of Kelleram for the appointment of being a renter of certain lands in the 
province of Bahar; the fact of such unfitness of the said Kelleram not being 
charged in the impeachment. 

And again on the 4th day of May, when the Lords decided, 

lhat it is not competent to the Managers for the Commons to put the following 
question to the witness upon the Seventh Article of Charge, viz. :—Whether 
more oppressions did actually exist under the new institution than under the old ? 

And again on the 18th day of May, when the House of Lords 
resolved, 

lhat it is not. competent to the Managers for the Commons to give evidence of 
the enormities actually committed by JDeby Sing; the same not being charged in 
the Impeachment. 

And again on the 2d day of June, when the Lords resolved, 

That it is not competent for the Managers, on the part of the Commons, to give 
any evidence upon the Seventh Article of the Impeachment, to prove that the 
letter of the 5th of May, 1781, is false, in any other particular than that wherein 
it is expressly charged to be false. 

The said divisions of the House of Lords are founded upon princi¬ 
ples not peculiar to trials by impeachment. They are founded upon 
common sense, and on the immutable principles of justice. In Scot¬ 
land those principles are peculiarly necessary to be adhered to, inas¬ 
much as by the laws of that part of the united kingdom, a defendant 
is obliged to produce a complete list of all his witnesses in exculpa¬ 
tion, the day before the trial. That alone appears to me a considera¬ 
ble hardship. But if, after such list is actually delivered in by the 
defendant, any facts (or supposed facts) not particularly set forth as 
crimes in the indictment, may, on the following day, for the first 
time, and without notice, be suddenly brought out in evidence upon 
the trial against the defendant: such defendant, from such an entrap¬ 
ping mode of trial, may be convicted, although innocent. Such pro¬ 
ceedings (whether supported or unsupported by any old Scotch 
statute passed in arbitrary times) ought, I conceive, to be revised. 
For, in a free country, there ought not to be one mode of administer¬ 
ing justice to one man, namely, to Mr. Hastings, and an opposite 
mode of administering justice to another man, namely, to Mr. Muir. 

Stanhope. 


HOUSE OF COMMONS. 

February 21th, 1794. 

(Abridged from the Scots Magazine and Morning Chronicle of 1794. y 

Mr. Sheridan presented a petition from the Rev. Mr. Fische 
Palmer, who had been tried and convicted of sedition at Perth, com- 


136 


plaining of the sentence of transportation for seven years, which had been 
pronounced against him. An interesting discussion took place on this 
petition, in the course of which 

Mr. Adam (now the venerable Lord Chief Commissioner of the 
Jury Court in Scotland) rose and stated, that, on Thursday next, he 
would feel it his duty to bring under the consideration of the House 
the proceedings of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, in refer¬ 
ence to the case of Thomas Muir the younger of Huntershill. 

Mr. Fox stated, that he considered the sentence of Messrs. Muir 
and Palmer as illegal and abhorrent of the principles of justice. 

Mr. Sheridan said, it was very confidentially reported, that 
although sentence was passed, yet there was good reason for believing 
that a sentence so abhorrent to the very spirit of our law, a sentence 
which no man in the House would dare to vindicate if applied to a 
similar offence in England—would not be carried into execution. 
That lending a book (which was. the case of Mr. Muir) should subject 
a man to transportation like a felon for fourteen years, would be enough 
to raise the people of this country in arms. If Ministers attempted 
to make the law of Scotland the law of England, (but they dared 
not,) they would find it a sufficient crime to forfeit their heads. 

They charge us,” said Mr. Sheridan, “ with making a party question 
of this, when we ought to have applied to the fountain of mercy.” I 
know what mercy was shewn them before we made any question on 
the subject. I speak with some information; I have seen those 
unfortunate victims—I have visited them in those loathsome hulks, 
where they were confined among common felons, not indeed with 
irons upon them, but with irons recently taken off, separated from 
each other, deprived of the comfort of conversing, and that on a pre¬ 
tence that there was danger of sedition in this society—that two 
imprisoned men could create an insurrection.—“ I saw these gentle¬ 
men, and I boast of it; for whatever may be the feelings of some, I 
shall always be proud to countenance whomsoever I conceive to be 
suffering under oppression.” 

March 10 th, 1794. 

Mr. Adam began at five o’clock a speech of three hours and a 
half, which displayed great extent of historical and legal information. 
He set out with a very fine appeal to the House on the importance, 
interest, and gravity of the question which he was about to bring 
before them. He rose, he said, to offer to the House a proposition 
on a subject which had already undergone much discussion:—to 
review the decision of the 31st of August last in the Supreme Court 
of Justiciary in Scotland against Thomas Muir; and the trial of the 
Circuit Court of Justiciary, which was also a supreme Court, against 
Thomas Fysche Palmer. From these Supreme Courts there lay no 
appeal, and therefore it became necessary for that House to enter 
into the review. He felt great confidence, as well as great anxiety, 
upon the present occasion—confidence in the cause which, from its 
gravity, importance, and interest, he was sure would engage them to 


137 


indulge him with the most patient attention; and yet he felt great 
anxiety at the idea of having to discuss, in a popular assembly, a 
question that ought to be tried in a Court of Appeal. That resort 
was denied. He was driven to the necessity of agitating it in that 
place, where, however, he had comfort in seeing around him so many 
persons of great talents in every way—men of great legal talents 
without legal practice, as well as men at the head of the profession; 
and who were Doctri utriusque legis. He referred to the Right 
Honourable Gentleman opposite to him, who had successively filled 
the offices of Solicitor-General and Lord Advocate (Mr. Dundas) as 
well as to the present Lord Advocate, who had so material a share in 
the present proceedings. He had great confidence therefore, that the 
discussion of the question would be made in that House with the 
effect to be expected from men accustomed to form decisions on 
subjects of jurisprudence, and experienced in the clear, pure adminis¬ 
tration of the law of the lar 1 . He should enter into the discussion 
with all the coolness, temper, and gravity, which would be used in a 
Court of Law, as if he were arguing it on a writ of error, and plead¬ 
ing for a new trial. He was sensible of its importance, of its extent, 
and of its difficulty ; but he would not attempt, as Lord Bacon said, 
“ to use a number of words to find talk or discourse ; to raise diffi¬ 
culties ; to contradict and confute, but to weigh and consider” the 
case with candour and with gravity. He would endeavour to avoid 
all technical discussions, of which a great legal character had truly 
said, “ That forms of law were the tenses of justice.” He should 
avoid as much as possible every thing that was merely technical, 
though it was obvious that the whole merits of the question must, in 
a great measure, depend on the forms and proceedings in the criminal 
courts and of the law of Scotland; and by these the legality or the 
illegality of the proceedings must be determined. His proposition was, 
that there should be laid before the House certain parts of the Records 
in these two trials; he said parts of the Records, that he might the better 
point out the particulars to which he meant to draw their attention. 
These parts were, the indictment, the plea, the verdict, and the sentence. 
There were some things also which related to Mr. Muir particularly, 
which he desired to have before the House; they were the order of com¬ 
mitment of two witnesses, William Muir and John Russell, as well 
as the objection that was made to the Jurors, which was over-ruled. 
These were the subjects of his intended motions : but he did not mean 
to rest here; though this would be the question immediately before 
the House, he meant undoubtedly to go farther; he meant from these 
records to question the legality of the sentence, and upon that doubt, 
as no appeal could lie from this questionable conviction, he proposed 
to move for a most respectful Address to his Majesty, in favour of 
these unfortunate men. He assured the House that in pursuing this 
course, he would make the Address as respectful as it was in his 
power to do. It was the duty of every individual and of every body 
of men, who addressed the throne with a petition for the exercise of 
the prerogative of mercy, to approach his Majesty with the most 


138 


respectful language; as it ought to be the care of all men to preserve 
that loyal obedience to Majesty, which, as Judge Blackstone well said, 
the Constitution had ascertained to the King. He would use that 
eminent lawyer’s own words: it had been the care of their ancestors, 
“ Not to make the Monarch appear in any of the invidious parts of 
the Constitution ; but in those works in which the nation only see him 
engaged personally; works of legislature, magnificence, and mercy.” 
By the course which he proposed to himself then, he maintained the 
truest reverence for the throne; since he moved only for the exercise 
of his most shining prerogative ; and though he questioned the legality 
of the sentence, and the soundness of the discretion, yet his Address 
to the throne should be most respectful. This was the nature of his 
proceeding, and in the discussion of the subject, he thought himself 
bound to maintain the following propositions: 

First, That the crimes set forth in the indictments against Thomas 
Muir and Thomas F. Palmer, are what the law of Scotland calls 
leasing-making , that is, uttering words or publishing matter, tending 
to breed discord between the King and his people. This is properly 
a misdemeanour in the nature of a public libel, tending to affect the 
state, or disturb the government, and these indictments charge no other 
crime whatever. 

Second , That the punishment of transportation, cannot, by the law 
of Scotland, be legally inflicted for the crime of leasing-making. The 
Act of Queen Anne, 1703, c. iv. having appropriated to that crime 
the punishment of fine, imprisonment, and banishment only, and that 
the annexing the pain of death to the return from such transportation, 
was an aggravation not warranted by law. The punishment of death 
being expressly taken away by that statute, and no statute having 
passed since that time, which varies or alters that law; and 

Third , That if the acts charged in the indictments do not con¬ 
stitute the crime of leasing-making, or public libel, the indictments 
charge no crime known to the law of Scotland ; 1st, because there is 
no such crime known to the law of Scotland at common law, as real 
sedition constituting a distinct and separate offence; 2d, because if 
there is such a crime, these indictments do not state it; 3d, because, 
if there were such separate and distinct offence in Scotland at common 
law, it would be contrary to law to punish that offence by transporta¬ 
tion, and not warranted by law to inflict the pain of death for return¬ 
ing from such transportation. These were the propositions which he 
thought it incumbent upon him to lay down and to maintain. At the 
same time he conceived, that if he made out the first, he made out his 
whole case, since that would comprehend the illegality. An indict¬ 
ment in Scotland is laid in the form of a syllogism ; its major contains 
the corpus dilecti , of which the minor states the facts, and the conclu¬ 
sion is, that the major should be proved by these facts. The indict¬ 
ment of Thomas Muir states in the major, that advising and exhorting 
persons to purchase and peruse seditious and wicked publications, and 
to distribute and circulate them, &c. &c. are crimes of a heinous 
nature; and the facts stated in the minor are, that he did make 


139 


speeches in certain societies and meetings, and did advise persons to 
buy and read Paine’s Rights of Man, and did circulate the same. It 
appears, then, that the major of this proposition holds out no other 
crime than that of leasing-making; and all the facts stated in the 
minor proposition of his indictment, aggravated as they are by the 
terms of the major, go no farther than the crime of leasing-making. 
He said he held in his hand one of three trials of Thomas Muir, that 
had been printed in Edinburgh, the one printed for William Creech, 
because it was evidently written against the prisoner. If there should 
be any objections to the quotations which he made from that pamphlet, 
he gave notice to the House that he held in hi9 hand official copies of 
the record, with which he had been furnished from Scotland, and to 
which he should be ready to refer. He said, that by the best autho¬ 
rities on the law of Scotland, there was no such thing as the sort of 
sedition which the indictment here affected to hold out. The law of 
Scotland understood from all the facts mentioned in this indictment 
no other crime than that of leasing-making. Sir George Mackenzie, 
who wrote towards the latter end of the last century, who was so 
closely connected with the Duke of Lauderdale, and the apologist for 
all his maladministration, was an authority that the House would not 
be disposed to dispute, inasmuch as it would not be conceived that 
he would give the most favourable interpretation of the law in 
favour of the liberty of the subject. What does he say on the 
point? That, a commotion of the people tending to disturb the 
Government was treason, but if a commotion was excited upon any 
private account it was in Scotland called, a convocation of the lieges. 
Sedition was never laid as a crimen per se , hut as it was connected 
with other crimes of which it was an aggravation. The seditio regni 
was punishable as treason, and was always so laid in the indictment, 
and the relevancy of the crime to infer the punishment of treason was 
always first found by the Court. Here then was an authority which 
came home directly to the matter in issue, in support of his assertion, 
that the crime charged upon Muir and Palmer was no other than that 
described by the Act of Queen Anne to be leasing-making. No 
convocating of the people without arms, and without an overt-act of 
rebellion, was treason, and they knew of no other sort of sedition in 
the whole history of the law of Scotland. To be present at meetings, 
says Sir George Mackenzie, was not relevant to infer the punishment 
of treason, even though the meetings might be of a tumultuous nature. 
There could be in short no real sedition without actual rebellion, and 
every thing short of this real sedition was by the Act of Queen Anne 
defined to be leasing-making, and restricted to an arbitrary punishment. 
The punishment ordained by that law brought him to his second propo¬ 
sition : it was confined, as he had said, to three kinds, fine, imprisonment, 
and banishment; and banishment certainly did not mean transportation 
to a particular spot. A short history of the Act of Queen Anne 
would give them a master-key to unlock the mystery of all this pro¬ 
ceeding, which he called questionable legality and unsound discretion.— 
It was an act founded on the Claim of Right, which was the Charter 


140 


of the people of Scotland, and correspondent to the Bill of Rights in 
England, and therefore it ought to be construed liberally in favour of 
the people; it was a penal statute, and ought not therefore to be in¬ 
terpreted strictly as to tbe letter. There was a great advantage in 
knowing the history of an Act, as the means of expounding its inten¬ 
tion ; and it was a curious fact, that the Claim of Right, from which 
this law was derived, contained this important clause ; that the ‘ causing 
to pursue and forfeit persons, upon stretches of old arid obsolete laws, 
upon frivolous and weak pretences, upon lame and defective probations, 
as particularly the late Earl of Argyle, are contrary to law.’ If Eng¬ 
land could boast her Russel and her Sidney, Scotland also could 
boast her Argyle and her Salton. The Earl of Argyle was indicted 
for high treason and leasing-making, on account of his conscientious 
explanation of his subscription to an unconscientious list. The history 
of his case was not unknown to Gentlemen, Hume says of it, ‘ It is 
needless to enter into particulars, where the iniquity is so apparent: 
though the sword of justice was displayed, even her semblance was not 
put on, and the forms alone of law were preserved, in order to sanctify 
or rather aggravate the oppression.’ The horror excited by this case 
induced the people of Scotland, to insert the memorable clause, which 
he had read in the claim of right, arid under this they thought them¬ 
selves secure. Eleven or twelve years afterwards, however, on the 
memorable occasion of Darien’s settlement, a number of prosecutions 
were begun, which roused the Parliament, and they passed a statute, 
the statute immediately before that on leasing-making, confirming the 
claim of right in more precise terms, and declaring it to be treason to 
counteract any part of it. Immediately after this memorable statute, 
was passed the statute declaring that public libel was merely leasing- 
making , and was subject only to one or other of the three punishments 
which he had already mentioned. How important to the true under¬ 
standing of this statute was the short history: it clearly shews the 
intention of the Scotch Parliament—it did not repeal the crime, but it 
changed the punishment; it was no longer to incur the pain of death, 
but the pain of fine, imprisonment, or banishment, and these punish¬ 
ments were intended to be mild, and to be favourable to the subject. 
This act remained to the present day: nothing had happened since to 
alter, or to change the statute. Now the question was, Whether the 
word banishment, and the word transportation, were synonymous. In 
his mind nothing could be more distinct; and he hoped he should be 
able to shew the House, that through the whole series of the Scottish 
history, from the lowest case of mere precedent up to the highest of 
Legislative act, there was nothing to countenance the idea that the 
word banishment in this act could infer transportation. Let it be 
recollected that the act intended to mitigate the punishment, and if 
there was any doubt about the term, the Judges were bound by sound 
discretion, to take it in the most lenient sense. To be banished from 
one’s country, 

Around the world abroad to roam, 

Far from his native seat and pleasing home, 


HI 


lias always been considered as a severe and heavy sentence. But to 
be transported beyond seas to a particular spot—to be imprisoned in 
a distant and desolate land—to be doomed to the most despotic disci¬ 
pline and servitude, was such an aggravation of the punishment as did 
demand clear authority for its justification. The distinction between 
banishment and transportation was clearly known in all countries; it 
was known to the Roman law; it is known to the English law; and, 
in Scotland, it was of necessity clearly and perfectly understood and 
acted upon. Banishment was inflicted, but not transportation. Why? 
Because banishment was practicable, but transportation was not. 
Every condemnation must suppose a competent jurisdiction. Now 
Scotland had no colonies to which it could transport; it had no juris¬ 
diction abroad, and it therefore could not inflict that species of punish¬ 
ment. “ With us,” says Sir George Mackenzie, “ no judge can 
confine a man whom he banisheth to any place without his jurisdiction, 
because he hath no jurisdiction over other countries, and so cannot 
make acts, nor pronounce any sentence relative to them.” This was 
not merely the opinion of the great law authorities of Scotland ; it has 
also been found by decisions of the Court. There was a memorable 
case before a Scotch Sheriff, where he pronounced the sentence of trans¬ 
portation. The case was appealed to the Court of Session, and they 
decided that he had not the power of punishing by transportation, as he 
had no power out of his own shire. They, however, approved of the 
conviction, and they banished the man forth of Scotland, with certifica¬ 
tion, that, on his return, he should be punished with transportation ; thus 
declaring their own sense of the difference between banishment and 
transportation. Nothing could be more glaring than this fact; for 
they thus, in the face of all the world, had decided the general dis¬ 
tinction between the one and the other. The whole series of the 
statutes of Scotland served to confirm this interpretation. The law of 
1609, which punished libels with banishment, was the only law on the 
subject before the act of 1703 ; aud as Scotland had no colonies until 
the settlement of Darien, it was clearly understood that it was simple 
banishment only, and not transportation. It was certainly true, that 
there were many instances of transportation or of banishment to the 
West Indies, but they were all statutary; and they were all passed 
upon crimes that were capital. Wherever the words were added, and 
which were borrowed from England, they gave a severer meaning to 
the original Scotch term of banishment, and where they were not 
superadded, they were not to be implied. Transportation was first 
introduced by Charles II. and Sir George Mackenzie, his apologist, 
endeavours to give a colourable pretext to the Act, entitled, “ Against 
such as shall refuse to depone before the Privy Council against delin¬ 
quents,” one clause condemns those who shall refuse or delay to de¬ 
pone, to be banished to his Majesty’s Plantations in the West Indies; 
but in the same Act there is another clause, that no man’s declaration 
shall infer against himself any other penalty than simple banishment. 
Thus even the statute made a distinction between the two. As to all 
the Acts of the infamous Privy Council of Scotland, which could only 


14£ 


be paralleled in iniquity by the Star Chamber in England, it was im¬ 
possible for him to say a word, as they could not be produced or 
referred to: they were hidden in the darkness with which oppression 
and iniquity always clothed themselves. But with respect to the sen¬ 
tences of the Court of Justiciary, he would take upon himself to say, 
that there was not a single instance of transportation passed upon any 
one ofFence that was not in itself a capital offence. He could not have 
looked with his own eyes, but he had been favoured with very accu¬ 
rate notes, and he gave the challenge to the Learned Gentlemen on 
the opposite side of the House, that in the whole of the records of 
the Justiciary Court of Scotland they should produce a single instance. 
He trusted to the industry of gentlemen of most accurate investiga¬ 
tion, under directions the most precise. There were three kinds of 
capital cases in Scotland upon which transportation had been inflicted ; 
the first were capital punishments mitigated to transportation, and 
such were the capital crimes of notorious adultery, rape, disturbing a 
man in his dwelling, &c. &c. these crimes, all capital by the law, were 
frequently mitigated to transportation by the discretion of the Judges. 
There was a long list of these crimes, which it was not necessary for 
him to repeat. There was a second class of capital crimes where 
transportation was also used as a mitigation, and these were the cases 
in which, before the verdict was passed, the prosecutor agreed to 
restrict it to an arbitrary punishment. Gentlemen not acquainted 
with the Scotch law would understand that this was a very common 
practice in their trials. There was a third class of capital crimes also, 
where the prosecutor and prisoner consented to transportation, and 
which compact was a species of mitigation or pardon. In all these 
cases, the House would see that in all the three classes of capital 
crimes mitigated, capital crimes restricted to an arbitrary punishment, 
and capital punishments avoided by compact, transportation was passed 
only as a mitigation of a higher punishment. It constantly descended 
downwards; it did not ascend upwards. There was not a single case 
in the whole history of the practice of the Courts of Justiciary, of the 
sentence of transportation being passed on any man whose crime did 
not infer a capital punishment. Now the act of 1703 having made 
leasing-making , what we in England call a mere misdemeanour, and hav¬ 
ing delated that it should no longer be capital, it certainly was not 
competent for the Court, in sound discretion, to pass a higher sentence 
than the law ordained. The act of 1609, which was a law for punish¬ 
ing scandalous libels against the people of England—an odd law, if 
we were to judge by the manners of the present age, where abusing 
the Scots was more generally the practice, condemned the offence to 
banishment, or more rigorous corporeal pain. Banishment there could 
only mean banishment out of Scotland ; for then Scotland had no 
jurisdiction abroad; and the Act of 1703, being the next, took away 
all corporeal pain, and was professedly a mitigation of the Act of 
1609. But it would not have mitigated the act of 1609, if what was 
banishment in the first, could be interpreted into transportation in the 
second. And that the direct contrary was the case,—that the Act of 


143 


1703 mitigated the former statutes, was manifest, from the opinion of 
the greatest lawyers recently after the passing of that Act. In 1715 
and 1716, prosecutions were entered into against persons for distribut¬ 
ing Jacobite medals among the Faculty of Advocates. Among others, 
against a person* whose family had since certainly shown invariable 
loyalty to the family on the throne. The indictments were laid upon 
the statutes, and Sir David Dalrymple, the Lord Advocate, stated in 
his information, that ‘ the laws against leasing-making were anciently 
odious, but, since the happy Revolution, that grievance, among many 
others, has been removed, what was useful in the acts of leasing-mak¬ 
ing, preserved by the act of 1703, the bitterness of the punishment is 
restrained , and so the odiousness of the law is taken off.’ The next 
consideration was, to inquire, whether the laws passed since the Union 
would change the effect of the statute of 1703. The 4th of George 
I. specially excludes Scotland ; the 6th of George II. recognized what 
was formerly the law of Scotland, but did not go an iota further 
than it had gone. The general definition of crimes was different 
in the two countries. There was no such thing as what we call 
misdemeanour; there was no such thing as sedition at common 
law; and all the sentences of transportation go, as he had said, upon 
capital offences. The 25th of Geo. III. the Act made on the spur of 
a necessity, in consequence of the loss of America, certainly did not, 
either by its spirit or letter, change the body of the Scotch law; it 
ordained the transportation of felons to such places as his Majesty in 
his council should think fit; but it did not ordain, that what before 
was a less punishment should from thenceforward be a greater. 
Surely Parliament would not say, that this statute, which merely 
went to enable the King to send persons to any place beyond seas, in 
consequence of our having lost America, could be construed to alter a 
statute to which it even does not allude ; it must be consistent with 
itself, and as it neither affects to repeal or alter the former statutes, it 
goes only to declare, that where persons were subject to transporta¬ 
tion, the King in council shall have the power to transport them 
where he pleases. To show the very little accuracy that there was in 
this Act of Parliament, he stated that it contained the word “ felon ,” a 
word not known to the Scotch law, and which the Scotch statutes 
had never mentioned ; and even the sentence of Mr. Muir was incon¬ 
sistent with this Act; for by his sentence he might return to Ireland, 
and yet, by the Act of Parliament, if he did, he was liable to be exe¬ 
cuted. The Act of 1703 stood then the last and only one upon which 
the crime of leasing-making could be tried ; and that crime of leasing¬ 
making, which was the crime (if any) of Muir and Palmer, was subject 
by that statute to fine, imprisonment, or banishment only. He came now 
to his third proposition, that if the indictments did not charge the crime 
of leasing-making, they charged no other crime; for, as he had said, 
sedition was no crime at common law in Scotland. And he could not 
hear without horror, that a doctrine had been set up in justification of 


* Mr. Dundas. 


144 


the proceedings in Scotland, that as new manners made new crimes, the 
Court of Justiciary was supreme, and could make law applicable to 
the occasion. If it was possible to conceive that any Court of Judi¬ 
cature in this country, that boasted of its freedom and of the pure 
administration of criminal justice, could have such power, he could 
only say that it violated all his ideas of the Constitution of this coun ¬ 
try, and was an outrageous libel upon common sense. That such a 
declaration had come from the seat of justice, he had indeed heard, 
but sure he was, that it demanded a very strict and pre¬ 
cise animadversion. The old laws with respect to Conventicles 
were clearly done away, and so perhaps were the Burgh Acts; 
and it was a question, whether, when the English statutes against 
treason were made to extend to Scotland, they did not abrogate the 
old laws of treason. It was manifest, he thought, that they abrogated 
the treason laws of Scotland, where those treason laws varied from 
those of England.—It was treason in Scotland, for instance, for a 
person to kill another whom he had in trust, as a schoolmaster his 
pupil, or a guardian his ward; but though, on the extension of the 
treason laws of England to Scotland, this ceased to be treason, it was 
still a crimen in se —it was still the crime of murder. It was the 
same thing, the same analogy would apply to the crime of sedition; 
the English law could make that treason in Scotland which was not 
so in England. But they were not charged in the indictment with 
any other than that crime which in England is the misdemeanour of 
libel; and he believed there was hardly one man that heard him, that 
would deny that their punishment exceeded all the bounds of sound 
discretion. There was a phrase in the Scotch law which answered to 
what in English law was called accessary; the term was, art and part. 
But by the Scotch law the principal may be charged as art and part. 
The prisoner is obliged to deliver in the list of witnesses that he in¬ 
tends to call to his justification; and yet to prove art and part cir¬ 
cumstances may be introduced not contained in the indictment; and 
i if so, he is not permitted to call any new witnesses to his defence 
against such new charge. This might be consistent with the practice 
of the courts of Scotland, but it was contrary to all the principles of 
reason and justice. This was done in the case of Mr. Muir; it was 
proved that he had recommended Flower on the Constitution of 
France, and that he had uttered some expressions about reforming the 
abuses in the courts of law, although neither of these had been articu¬ 
lated in the indictment. He contended, that by art and part the 
indictment could merely mean art and part of the crimes libelled, and 
not of any other crimes; but the Lord Advocate said, that under the 
terms of art and part he could prove the sedition of his whole life, 
and draw into it every act of every kind. So he found had been the 
declaration on the trial. If so, he must aver that the gentleman had not 
had a trial that ought to subject him to the dreadful punishment 
passed upon him in the sentence. It was said, as an imputation upon 
the criminal law of England, that it was not necessary to name the 
precise day upon which a crime was committed, but the law required 


14.5 


that they should name and prove a day. But what was the practice 
in Scotland ? They were not obliged to confine themselves to a day; 
nay, after taking, in the case of Mr. Muir, the period of months, for 
his conduct during all which he was to prepare his defence, they 
extended their evidence to a time even beyond this, said they had 
a right to take in his whole life, and he was denied the power of 
bringing evidence in his defence, because he had not previously given 
a list of witnesses to refute charges of which he had never heard. I 
say , then, said Mr. Adam, that substantial justice has not been done to 
this gentleman; and if we have either the feelings or the hearts of 
men , we will not depart the House this night without an Address to 
the Throne for mercy . The next great objection to the fairness of 
his trial was, that which related to his Jury. A Society was formed 
in Scotland, at Goldsmiths’ Hall, resembling that at the Crown and 
Anchor, in consequence of the Institution of certain Societies called 
Friends of the People, of the publication of Paine’s Rights of Man, 
&c.—Of the Friends of the People, he should content himself with 
saying, that though many respected friends of his were advocates for 
a Reform of the Representation of the people in Parliament, he had 
no opinion in common with them on the subject; and of Paine’s 
Rights of Man he should only say, that he had been favoured with 
the reproach, in company with two Right Honourable Gentlemen 
over the way, for having disapproved of his doctrines. This Society 
at Goldsmiths’ Hall had reprobated in severe terms Paine’s book, and 
had excluded Mr. Muir from their society on account of his approving 
of that book. Gentlemen of this Society were the Jury, and an objec¬ 
tion was made by Mr. Muir, a strong, a valid objection, that they were 
prejudiced men, had declared their prejudice, and had acted upon it. It 
was an objection common to the law of Scotland. There was a memo¬ 
rable instance in the trial of Lord Balmerino in the year 1631. He 
objected to Lord Marishal and Lord Dumfries, as having expressed 
themselves in his disfavour, and he put them to their oath—they took it. 
He made the same objection to Lord Blantyre, who refused to take the 
oath of his not having spoken to his disfavour, and he was rejected. 
Now, with a precedent so strictly in point, when they saw the Lord Jus¬ 
tice Clerk repel the objection, because, forsooth, it would go far to exclude 
every man who has taken the oaths to Government—Good God, what 
must be the feelings of mankind on seeing so little regard paid to the 
decency of justice, and the fate of a fellow^-creature! The men who 
had declared Mr. Muir to be seditious, and who had acted so far 
against him as to exclude him a society, were yet held to be fair 
jurors! The treatment in regard to the witnesses was equally hostile 
to all justice. John Russell, a witness for the defendant, was sentenced 
to three weeks of imprisonment, because at the very commencement 
of his examination, he had not been able to mention the names of the 
persons who had spoken to him on the subject of the trial. Mr. 
Adam shewed the legal distinction between the credibility of a wit¬ 
ness and his competency. The Court had no right to withhold the 
evidence of a witness who was competent, on account of prevarication ; 

K 


146 


they ought to send it to the Jury, who are to judge of the credit that 
is due to it; but here they chose to deprive the prisoner of the evi¬ 
dence of his witness altogether. Another witness, William Muir, 
who from motives of conscience hesitated at taking an oath, was 
ordered to be imprisoned for ever I It was monstrous! It was 
impossible to speak of such an act without horror ! Now after this 
sort of trial they were to consider the most material part of the whole 
proceeding, the discretion of the Court in the sentence which they 
passed on the prisoner. It was with the utmost reluctance that he 
came to agitate the conduct of a court of justice in that assembly; he 
felt the delicacy and the difficulty of the subject; and he wished that 
the House had granted, what in his opinion ought yet to be done, the 
right of appeal, so as to bring these questions forward in a different 
shape. He had avoided carefully throwing forth, till now, any doubt on 
the subject of their conduct, because he thought it right that the question 
should be examined to the bottom, and that before a doubt was hazarded, 
gentlemen should be made acquainted with all the facts upon which 
it arose. Now that he had examined the whole proceeding with the 
most anxious and attentive mind, he must gravely declare, that he did 
doubt and question the soundness of their discretion in the sentence 
which they had passed. What was the crime? Misdemeanour. 
What was the punishment ? Transportation, the most aggravated and 
most afflicting that it could be. Let gentlemen consider what would 
have been the punishment passed in this country, on a similar offence ? 
What would have even been the punishment of Mr. Paine himself? 
He might certainly say that it would have been no more than fine and 
imprisonment. Such would have been the punishment in England. 
But in Scotland they sentenced them to the most shocking species of 
transportation. Transportation—not to America, not to a cultivated 
society, to an easy master, and to kind treatment, but to an inhospit¬ 
able desert at the extremity of the earth—condemned to live with 
ruffians, whom the gibbet only had spared, and under a system of 
despotism rendered necessary for the government of such a tribe I He 
illustrated the horrors of such a punishment by a beautiful passage 
from the philosophical Gibbon, and said, that though punishment 
ought not to be different for different classes of men, yet as the object 
of punishment was the prevention of crime, they surely ought to take 
care not to wound the feelings of mankind by exerting the utmost 
grasp of discretion to more than it could reach, or more than it could 
hold. The mind of man, shuddering at a disproportionate sentence, 
could feel no respect for the administration of justice so strained, and 
the hand of authority was therefore weakened and palsied by the act. 
In the exercise of sound discretion it was natural to think that the 
Court would have looked for the guides the most congenial to the 
feelings of the country. An article in the Union should have guided 
their discretion ; the practice of England should have guided their dis¬ 
cretion ; unless it was meant that their authority was to be the stalk¬ 
ing-horse for extending the same sort of severity to England. They 
should have remembered that as the two countries were bound together 


147 


by political and moral ties, that their allegiance was the same, their 
duties the same. They should have taken care that a punishment so 
outrageously different from that of the one country, should not have 
been suffered in the other. It was necessary even to the safety of 
England that this should be done. Even in the most violent case that 
England exhibited, that of Bishop Atterbury, our milder administration 
of justice thought only of an act of pains and penalties. But instead 
of this, they had had recourse to the despotism of the Romans, when 
the Romans had sunk under the tyranny of one man. It was with 
horror that he saw them referring to the practice of the Roman law , 
under Nero and Domitian , instead of the mild practice of the neigh¬ 
bouring country. One of the Judges had quoted the doctrine from 
the Roman law, and he took it for granted that the Latin quotation 
was correct, as the writer of the pamphlet would hardly have known 
it. He said that by the Roman law, “ Actores seditionis et tumultus, 
populo concitato, pro qualitate dignitatis, aut in fuream tolluntur, aut 
bestiis objiciuntur aut in insulam deportantur.”—“ We have chosen,” 
says the learned Judge, “ the mildest of these punishments.” Having 
gone through the case, Mr. Adam made a short, but warm and elegant 
conclusion, on the motives that had induced him to bring forward the 
subject. He had not done it from motives of professional interest; 
he had no personal knowledge of the sufferers ; not from personal 
prejudice to the Judges, for he respected their characters; not from 
his love of Paine’s principles, for he had frankly declared his opinion 
on them ; but because he considered the distribution of criminal justice 
as the best defence of public liberty; he did it to save the nation from 
the disgrace and mischief of individual oppression, and because he 
believed that the perversion of criminal jurisprudence was likely to be 
the forerunner of anarchy on the one side, or of despotism on the 
other. Feeling for the honour of the country, for the purity of criminal 
jurisprudence , for the safety of the British Constitution , he had thought 
it Jit to bring before the House a proceeding which had wounded and 
tortured the feeliugs of considerate men ; and he proposed to correct 
the dangerous tendency of this proceeding by the most respectful 
means; it was a becoming privilege in the House to petition the 
Crown to exercise the most divine of its prerogatives, that of mercy, 
which blesses him that gives as well as him that asks, and by thus 
procuring seasonable redress to quiet the minds of the people, and to 
preserve sacred and inviolate the beauty of that Constitution which he 
hoped would descend unimpaired to the latest posterity. He con¬ 
cluded, therefore, with moving, That his Majesty would give directions 
that there be laid upon the table extracts from the book of a journal 
of the Supreme Court of Justiciary in Scotland of the trial of Thomas 
Muir, so far as related to the indictment, &c. 

Mr. Fox seconded the motion. 

The Lord Advocate of Scotland said, this was as serious a sub¬ 
ject as ever came before that House for its discussion, for .it involved 
the consideration of the proceedings of a Court of Justice not only 
the legality of them only, but also the discretion of the exercise ot 


148 


their power also; supposing their proceedings to have been strictly 
legal, in the whole of which he must say, that not the Judges of the 
Court of Justiciary only were to blame, if blame there was on any 
part of the prosecution of these trials, but he must also bear his part 
of the censure, and must have his apology to make ; and if the Learned 
Gentleman who opened the debate found it necessary to claim the 
indulgence of the House while he entered on the various topics of this 
subject, he must, in that respect, follow his example. In the part, he 
said, he had taken in these prosecutions, he followed the strict and 
fair, and to his mind the only mode that was pointed out by the Cri¬ 
minal Law of Scotland. He should not go upon the character of the 
Judges in the Court of Justiciary, further than to say they were men 
who had made the study of the law of their country, almost the only 
study of their lives, in which they had acquired the highest reputation. 
But if they were wrong in their decisions upon this subject, they were 
without excuse; for it had been argued before them over and over 
again, and they had persisted in the opinion which they originally gave. 
He admitted the justness of the general principles of the Learned Gen¬ 
tleman whom he was now about to answer, but differed almost totally 
from him in the application of these principles ; and with respect 
to the exercise of the discretion of the Judges, as well as the legality 
of their proceedings, he trusted the House would agree with him, if he 
succeeded in what he should lay down, that the whole conduct of these 
trials was worthy of the approbation of the House. He must be per¬ 
mitted to say that the whole of the speech of the Learned Gentleman, 
as far as it respected the proceedings in question, was founded either 
on a complete misrepresentation, misconception, or ignorance of the 
law of Scotland, and of the practice of the Courts of Law there: and 
he trusted that the House would not permit a Court of Justice to be 
attacked in its character and dignity upon slight grounds ; and he must 
add, that whatever some persons might say about assimilating the laws 
of Scotland to the laws of England, he was sure that much mischief had 
arisen from the ignorance and clamour with which the proceedings of 
the Courts of Scotland had been accused ; these practices might, if 
not properly opposed, tend to bring the Judges, however high their 
character, and the law of Scotland, however wise and just, into dis¬ 
credit with their countrymen, a thing which he trusted that House 
would discountenance. The Learned Gentleman had misunderstood 
the nature of the law which was applied to the case of Messrs. Muir and 
Palmer; he had apprehended the law on leasing-making only had 
been applied to their case: that was not so. They were tried upon 
a charge distinct from that, which he would endeavour to explain to 
the House. From various circumstances, it became his duty, for 
about 17 or 18 months, to look particularly at the law of Scotland, 
and to look at that part of it which had slept in peace for a century, 
and until very lately no man thought it would have been necessary to 
call it forth in the manner it had been; nor would it, but for the acts 
of men who seemed to be endeavouring to see how far they could go 
with impunity. In this situation, it became his duty, and the duty of 


149 


those who acted with him, to look into all the old statutes upon these 
points, from the time of Robert III. down to the present time, and to 
look at every Act of Parliament in that period that applied to the 
question to be determined by these trials; they went over the whole 
history of the country, and the Act of 1503 was particularly under 
their consideration ; and the result was, that they were decidedly of 
opinion that the fact proved against Mr. Muir was not such as came 
under the meaning of leasing-making, but was separate from that; for 
leasing-making was that of telling lies of the King, and so forth. But 
that the offence of this person was, that of exciting persons to acts of 
sedition against the King and the Constitution, and therefore he found 
he could not indict him for leasing-making. But even if Muir had been 
tried for leasing-making, he (the Lord Advocate) should make it as 
clear as the sun, that on a conviction of the charge of leasing-making, 
he would have been liable to have the punishment of transportation 
inflicted on him, as well as in that of which he was convicted; he 
therefore could have no view whatever in charging these men with the 
offence for which he indicted them, except that of acting according 
to the law of the country in which they committed the offence. 

He then proceeded to examine the meaning of the word ban- 
ishment, in which he differed from Mr. Adam in the definition. 
He did not think that it meant the slighter part of sending away 
from one place, and to the exclusion of another, which w r as 
called the severe part. He defined banishment by the law of Scot¬ 
land to mean that of sending to any part the Court should think 
fit, and that transportation was only the means of carrying ban¬ 
ishment into effect. This doctrine he maintained to be supported 
in the preamble of the Act of Parliament of 1503, so much relied 
upon by the Learned Gentleman. He maintained also that this prin¬ 
ciple was recognized by the different Acts of 1600, 1604, 1661, and 
all the Acts from that period down to the Act of 1670, under the 
authority of which several persons had been sentenced to be trans¬ 
ported to the West Indies, and other parts beyond the seas, for leas¬ 
ing-making. He drew a conclusion from these premises, that the 
Judges who presided at these trials could not have acted otherwise 
than they did, could not have inflicted on those defendants slighter 
punishments, and answer to their country for the duty they owed to 
it, to their King, and to God. This was the case upon trials for 
leasing-making, in instances too numerous to mention in the course of 
this debate, for he could cite above fifty of them, some of a very old 
date indeed; for he believed that above two centuries ago, when 
Shetland and the Orknies belonged to the Crown of Denmark, per¬ 
sons were transported from Scotland thither, being at that time the 
only places to which transports from Scotland could be sent. Indeed, 
by the regular practice of the Courts of Law in Scotland, these points 
were arbitrary, and in the discussion of the Judges ; and by Arbitrary 
Power, by the Law of Scotland, was meant a power to inflict what 
punishment the Judges should, in their discretion, think proper, short 
of death. Among many cases he alluded to, he mentioned one as a very 


150 


striking case. It was tlie case of David Bailey, who was tried on the 
24th of February, 1704. This man was accused of leasing-making — 
of saying that the Duke of Hamilton and the Duke of Queensbery had 
supported the Pretender. He was convicted of this charge. What was 
the sentence pronounced upon him ? They declared him to be infa¬ 
mous ; they banished him forth of Scotland for ever; ordered that 
he be transported to the West Indies, to be imprisoned till he was 
transported, and to be set upon the pillory at eleven o’clock in the 
forenoon, on such a day as the Court should appoint. His Lordship 
said he was open to conviction, and he was sure the Judges of the 
Court of Justiciary were; but he wished to know whether any case 
could be stronger than this, or how it could be explained away, for 
this was only eight months after the Act of 1703, on which so much 
stress had been laid, and justly laid, for that was an important Act. 
This was after the declaration of grievances, and the claim of rights, 
and the rights of Queen Anne. Would the Privy Council who pro¬ 
nounced this sentence, have dared to pronounce it, and to have ban¬ 
ished this man for ever at such a time, if that had not been a legal 
act ? On inquiry, he found these Privy Counsel were the first men 
at that time in Scotland, five of whom were Judges. But this was 
not all, for he maintained, that even the learned character to whom 
the Learned Gentleman had alluded, and to whom mankind were so 
much indebted (Sir George Mackenzie), had defined sedition in his 
Treatise on the Laws of Scotland, and had warranted the conclusion 
of the Court of Justiciary and Circuit Courts on the present trials. 
That great lawyer had considered sedition as a common law offence; 
indeed, sedition was a crime well known to the law of Scotland. 

The statement of the Learned Gentleman was certainly correct as 
to the pleadings of the Court of Scotland being in the form of a syl¬ 
logism. They certainly had a major and a minor proposition, in the 
course of which the prisoner was to know in general what was to be 
alleged against him, but the Learned Gentleman misunderstood the 
Law of Scotland entirely, if he thought that the Scotch Lawyers 
were to plead as formally, as they do in England. That was never 
the practice of the Law of Scotland. This was what some English 
Lawyers had called a shameful latitude, but so the Law of Scotland 
was. It was enough by that Law, if a charge was made out in general 
terms, and the time, by the common practice, in which the prosecutor 
insisted on any act of the defendant, was the period of three months, 
within the time of which the prisoner had notice. In either one or 
other of these days, the prosecutor must give evidence of seditious 
speeches or writings, but either of them would do upon a charge of 
sedition generally laid against such prisoner. The prosecutor was not 
bound to prove what he stated specifically; it was enough to prove 
what the nature of the charge was generally to entitle him to give 
evidence of speech, words, or letters. This doctrine applied to the 
case of the book, called the “ Flower of the Constitution,” in the 
defendant’s pocket. An objection was taken to this—he was ready 
to have argued the thing, but before the Court could give their judg- 


151 

merit, he gave up the point ex gratia, because he thought it not worth 
while to dispute it. 

As to the objection taken to the Jurymen, because they were mem¬ 
bers of the Goldsmiths Hall Association, if that was to be allowed as 
a disqualification, they would object to the first characters in the 
country. They might as well say, they would not be tried by any 
friend to the Constitution, or by any but those who thought as they 
did. This must be the case if this objection was allowed, for if we 
searched the whole country over, there would be found but two classes 
of persons—those who wished to support the Constitution, and those 
who wished to destroy it, and to introduce all the confusion and the 
anarchy of France. There was no middling class to be found. 

He then took notice of the case, as it respected the witness Russel, 
and maintained that the answers he gave amounted to prevarication, 
and therefore he was committed. He maintained that the pannel lost 
nothing for want of the testimony of this witness, for that he only 
came to prove what twelve other witnesses had sworn on the part 
of the defendant,—that he frequently desired the populace to behave 
peaceably, and so on: these witnesses he had no doubt have had a 
conference at Glasgow upon this subject; and that was the reason 
they agreed so well on this part of the story. 

As to the soundness or the discretion of the Court of Justiciary, 
he found himself bound to defend it under all the circumstances 
with which it was attended. Upon this subject he entered much at 
length, and observed that he had heard much of the superiority of the 
law of England over the law of Scotland; but for his part, he thought 
that in this particular case the law of Scotland was superior to the 
law of England, and much better adapted to suppress sedition. He 
maintained also, that transportation was the most prudent disposal 
that could be made of persons, who had been guilty of such atrocious 
offences, for the persons convicted, if they had been fined, would 
have had their fines paid by others,—and as to imprisonment, they 
would have borne it with triumph; and would, as others do, have 
laughed at their prosecutor; and might sow the seeds of sedition 
among poor, illiterate, and heedless people—what might be the effect 
of the people of England having among them such men as Skirving, 
Margarott, and Gerald ? 

Mr. Thompson called to order, and thought it highly improper to 
bring forward the name of Mr. Gerald, who was not yet tried. 

The Lord Advocate made an apology, and then entered upon 
the general subject of the trials, and maintained their legality and the 
soundness of the discretion of the Judges, who, be said, had done 
nothing more than the law commanded them to do. 

Mr. Sheridan took notice of all the arguments of the Lord Advo¬ 
cate, and maintained there was a fallacy in the whole tenor of his 
speech, for he confounded two things essentially distinct, that of 
leasing-making and sedition. All the cases he had brought forward 
applied to leasing-making only; and the question did not involve that 
consideration, but related merely to sedition, upon which not a single 


1 52 


case was to be found. He ridiculed the assertion of lawyers from 
Scotland telling the House they were not qualified to judge on a point 
of common sense, because they were not Scotch lawyers. The ques¬ 
tion here was a question of common sense, arising out of the history 
of the country. He reprobated in the most severe manner the obser¬ 
vation of the Lord Advocate, that there was no middle class of people 
in Scotland, between those who wished to destroy the Constitution 
and introduce the horrors of anarchy, and those who applauded the 
proceedings of the Court of Justiciary. The assertion he hoped and 
believed to be as false, with regard to the people of Scotland, as he 
knew it to be false of the great body of the people of England ; he 
knew that in England there was a class between Republicans and 
Levellers, and Associators and Alarmists, and much more honourable 
in their views than either, and men upon whom the safety of this 
Kingdom might depend, and to whom every honest man might look 
up to with confidence—men who had too much spirit to crouch to 
power, and too much candour and integrity to stoop to mean artifice, 
to gain the momentary applause of the unthinking part of the com¬ 
munity. He expressed his indignation at the idea of the Learned Lord 
preferring the criminal law of Scotland to that of England, and said 
that such assertions should never be suffered to pass unreprobated, 
lest contempt might by some be construed into acquiescence, and lest 
some Minister might be bold enough to make an experiment of 
changing the criminal law of England for that of Scotland. He took 
notice of the conduct of the Court, with regard to the witness Russell, 
offered on the part of Mr. Muir, and maintained that both the Lord 
Advocate and the Court had acted illegally upon that subject; that 
their conduct would not have been agreeable to any principle of 
law, in any civilized society;—that witness had only said, that he 
did not recollect what no person in Court could prove to be false. 
He applied many pointed observations on the refusal of the Court of 
Justiciary to allow the objection of Mr. Muir to the Jury, as having- 
prejudiced his cause in the association of the Goldsmiths’ Hall Com¬ 
pany. This, he said, confounded two things essentially at variance 
with one another in the administration of justice in every Court where 
justice could be known—that of the accuser being a Judge, which 
was the case on the trial of Mr. Muir. He ridiculed the effect of the 
researches of the Lord Advocate, who had studied the law of Scotland 
for eighteen months, and had only brought forward a law which had 
slept for a century, which, when he brought it, turned out to be only 
a law upon leasing-making , whereas the subject to which he applied 
it was sedition. He observed that it was rather remarkable, that the 
Noble and Learned Lord could not have found in the History of 
Scotland any law for sedition, in the course of a century, although 
within that time it had produced two rebellions. It was extra¬ 
ordinary, he said, that the Noble Lord should never by accident 
have stumbled on the case of a Mr. Dundas (he thought his 
name was), of Arneslon, who was accused of distributing medals, 
which a wicked woman, called the Duchess of Gordon, had given 


153 


to him : on these medals were the head of the Pretender, and some¬ 
thing very seditious on the other side—and of making speeches 
recommending the cause of the Pretender, It was extraordinary that 
this circumstance had escaped the historical vigilance of the learned 
Lord. He took notice also of the charge against Mr. Muir for 
distributing books, the works of others, and of transporting him 
for fourteen years for it, as a thing perfectly new. Had the 
Learned Lord had never heard of such a crime as calling on the 
people to ask for a Parliamentary Reform ? Perhaps the Noble 
Lord had never heard of such a thing as a resolution signed William 
Pitt, Duke of Richmond, and others, calling on the people to do 
that very thing. £Here he read the resolution of the Thatched-house 
Tavern, entered into by Mr. Pitt and his party in 1781.] Perhaps the 
Noble Lord had not known any thing of the late publications of Mr. 
Burke against Popular Rights, which however agreed pretty well with 
the speeches of the Noble Lord at these Trials, for every sentence and 
almost every word seemed as if borrowed from that admired perform¬ 
ance. But the public would see through all this; they would see that there 
was something so implacable, so rancorous in the character of an apos¬ 
tate, that he can never forgive others for adopting what he has found 
convenient to abandon : hence all the persecutions against all those who 
dare to follow the plan of a Parliamentary Reform. He then took 
notice of the case of Bailey, and maintained that the Privy Council 
exceeded their power to a shameful degree in that case. He main¬ 
tained that the Lord Advocate had misconstrued the whole of the 
opinion of Sir George Mackenzie on the subject of sedition; and he 
observed that the question now for the House to ask itself, was 
whether they would, in order to clear a point that was at least ex¬ 
tremely doubtful, agree to the motion ? He warned the House against 
the public danger of laying down a precedent which would go to the 
length of telling the people of this kingdom that the House of Com¬ 
mons will never institute an inquiry into the conduct of justice upon 
any thing short of illegality. 

Mr. Whitbread informed the House that he had the honour (for 
an honour in the true sense of the word he deemed it,) to be acquainted 
with Mr. Palmer, to whom he paid the most handsome compliments 
for understanding and virtue. He then took notice of the subject of 
debate before the House, and declared he thought these severe sen¬ 
tences were dangerous to the public welfare and tranquillity of the 
realm. These were points on which posterity would impartially 

judge_Every day Ministers were pushing points too far: a day 

would arrive when these things should be seen impartially. 

Mr. Wyndham defended the legality of the trials, on the prece¬ 
dents which appeared to him to have been quoted. He was of opin¬ 
ion that the Law of England might be altered and assimilated to the 
Law of Scotland, if it was found adequate to the purposes of suppress¬ 
ing sedition. 

Mr. Fox said, he considered the question to be of a nature so 
alarmingly important, that he could not sit silent after hearing the 


154 


arguments that had been brought forwardthere were some circum¬ 
stances collaterally introduced which he was obliged to notice before 
he went to the legality of the conduct of the proceedings that had 
taken place in Scotland; and he could not help observing with parti¬ 
cular surprise and indignation, the manner in which the Learned Lord 
expressed a wish that the law of Scotland, as he expounded it, should 
be introduced into England, instead of those wise and salutary laws 
under which so much had been secured to this country; and when 
the Learned Lord roundly asserted that he was convinced the Scotch 
criminal law was preferable to the English law, and that he could 
wish to see them assimilated, he owned he was struck with the violence 
and boldness of such doctrines. Were they extended to the full length 
that the Learned Lord, and a Right Honourable Friend of his seemed 
to wish, he saw no security that he, his Honourable Friends, or any 
other person had, that they might not be sent to Botany Bay, as it 
placed them completely in the power, and at the discretion of the 
executive government. In the present case he thought the Scotch 
Judges had exercised their discretion to a degree of impropriety that 
was not justifiable, or if it was justifiable by any law, it was full time, 
from the enormity of the case, that such law should be repealed, and 
the people of Scotland put upon the same footing with those in Eng¬ 
land. He thought that House had shewn a degree of false delicacy 
about calling for the record on this case, and reminded them of the 
petitions in the reign of Charles I. which, though they came some of 
them from people not of unexceptionable character, were properly 
attended to by Parliament. With regard to the act of 1703, it certainly 
was a limiting act, and under the word banishment, never could mean 
transportation ; and being a mitigating act ought to be construed 
mildly; he then came to the act 1672, which specifies when trans¬ 
portation is the meaning, that some of those convicted under that 
law, were to be transported to the West-Indies, and in other cases 
forth of the realm, which is no more than banishment from their 
country, without any direction where they are to be sent. He consid¬ 
ered the negative evidence given by his Honourable Friend who made 
the motion, as entitled to much weight, as nothing had been said on 
the other side. His Honourable Friend had proved that there was 
no one instance, except for capital crimes, of any person being trans¬ 
ported after sentence of banishment had passed, and no instance of 
any trial for sedition in the history of Scotland to be found. In one 
act, indeed, there were words which went farther on the subject of 
punishments by banishment to places specified, and added, “ or other¬ 
wise but certainly no man would say, that this should be acted 
upon by construing the law with a latitude from those words to the 
injury of the subject: considering therefore the principle of this law, 
and of all mitigating laws, he was clearly of opinion that the Scotch 
Judges had either misunderstood or misinterpreted the law. As to 
what happened in 1704, and which had been stated as a precedent, it 
was only necessary to say, that those proceedings were ruled by the 
Privy Council, at the time the most reprobated of all the tribunals 


1 55 


that could possibly be mentioned. Indeed, in this opinion be had 
the high authority of a great lawyer in the other House, who had said 
from the Woolsack last year, when the precedent of the Appeal to 
the Privy Council, 1704, was stated, “ You must not mention that; 
you cannot argue from it; it is no precedent.” The Learned Lord 
had taken pains to explain what leasing-making was, but he had like¬ 
wise been obliged to own, that there were other crimes which had 
been punished as sedition, that did not precisely come within the 
description of telling falsehoods between the King and the people; 
such as the case of his ancestor and others, in the reign of George I. 
such as drinking the Pretender’s health, refusing to ring the bells at 
Dundee on the King’s accession, and others which had not been fol¬ 
lowed up by transportation; and would any man compare the crimi¬ 
nality of those cases, to the criminality of the present case, which was 
merely delivering opinions favourable to a Parliamentary Reform ? 
He treated with happy irony the argument of the Learned Lord, that 
he was so much at a loss to find out the proper way of punishing 
sedition in Scotland, that he was obliged to look into laws that had 
been dormant for a century; but if there was no sedition in Scotland 
for a century, was there none in England that he could look to ? That 
there should be none in Scotland was the more extraordinary, as within 
that century there had been two open rebellions. By the Learned 
Lord’s argument, sedition was a good thing, for they had it in Eng¬ 
land, and had no rebellion there;—they had none in Scotland, and 
there there were two rebellions. He treated Sir George M‘Kenzie 
as the apologist of all the tyranny and oppression that disgraced the 
latter part of the reign of the Stuarts, and as such considered it 
humiliating to quote him as an authority; as far as it went, however, 
it would be found against the Learned Lord. He came next to dis¬ 
cuss the manner in which the evidence had been conducted at Mr. 
Muir’s trial, the bare statement of which, he said, must make the 
blood run cold of every one who heard it. He argued, in a masterly 
manner, the impropriety of bringing forward Ann Fisher, Mr. Muir’s 
domestic servant, to prove that he at some time or other had abused 
the proceedings of the Courts of Scotland. If such unquestionable 
proceedings were encouraged, where was the man who could say his 
character, his property, or his life, was in safety ? His Right Hon. 
Friend and he, with many others, who were united in their sentiments 
against the American war, might have been sent long ago to Botany 
Bay. In short, all were liable to be accused of sedition who opposed 
administration at the time, and the whole country was at the disposal 
of the Executive Government. The whole of the 'proceedings on this 
trial , he maintained , were disgusting and monstrous to every lover of 
justice and humanity. He saw a great similarity between that pro¬ 
ceeding and some of the detestable proceedings as to the crime: the 
Learned Lord’s sedition would there be termed incivism; and as to 
the punishment to a man of sensibility, there was little difference 
between Botany Bay and the guillotine. The Learned Lord having 
no statute law for sedition, had recourse to common law; but where 


156 


can it be found? The common law could only exist in three 
ways—on practice, on authority, or on the general reasoning of eter¬ 
nal justice ; but none of those could answer the purpose of the Learned 
Lord. He contended very ably, that the Court had been equally 
wrong in admitting improper evidence for the prosecution, and refusing 
competent evidence for the defendant—alluding to Russell’s. He laid 
it down to be the right of the Jury to judge of the credibility, the 
Court could only judge of the competency. He then entered into the 
question of challenging such of the Jury as had associated and offered 
a reward to convict Mr. Muir, as well as refusing to admit him of 
their society. This challenge in England would have been admitted, 
and he knew no reason why it should not be so in Scotland, because 
by their conduct they certainly had prejudged Mr. Muir. He noticed 
the want of decorum that prevailed on the Bench, and thought it the 
grossest levity and nonsense to hear the punishment stated by some 
of the Judges, to be the mildest and most lenient that could be in¬ 
flicted. The Learned Lord would have acted fairer, if he intended to 
alter the laws of this country, had he gone to the bottom of the plan. 
He was particularly severe upon the manner in which several of the 
Judges gave their opinions. If they were serious, they were as absurd 
as extraordinary; and if in jest, he would only ask if that was a place 
or a time for jests and ribaldry ? One among them had noticed with 
much indecency, the applause that followed Mr. Muir’s speech; and 
another, in a Latin quotation, pointed put from the Roman law, that 
the only punishment for sedition in Scotland was the gallows, deliver¬ 
ing the delinquent to wild beasts, or transportation ; and concluded, 
that they in their wisdom had made choice of “ the mildest.” If there 
was no law, or no example from their ancestors to direct them, might 
they not have looked for precedents in this country ? Here he thought 
himself bound to pay a just tribute of praise to a Right Honourable 
Gentleman opposite (the Attorney-General). In his official capacity, 
he had to prosecute to conviction : the sentence was fine and imprison¬ 
ment ; but in the execution of that sentence, the Gentleman, Mr. 
Winterbotham, a clergyman, who had been convicted of preaching 
two seditious sermons, found himself thrown into jail, amongst felons 
who had been guilty of every sort of crime; but no sooner did this 
come to the Attorney-General’s knowledge, then he, with sentiments 
of honour, justice, and humanity, said, “ God forbid that a person of 
the description mentioned, should, for a single day, be confined in such 
society;” and took steps, in consequence, that would do him immortal 
honour. Mr. Fox went into every part of the subject, and concluded 
a brilliant and animated speech, of which the above is merely a feeble 
outline, by declaring that he gave the motion his warmest support. 

Mr. Pitt contended for the legality of the whole proceedings in 
the fullest extent; that the act of 1703, by the word ‘ banishment,’ 
includes transportation; and was only so far a mitigating act, as it 
took away capital punishment from a crime that was capital, but left 
full power, and the exercise of discretion in the application of arbitrary 
punishment, according to the variety of the circumstances as they 


157 


occurred. He said that in all, or most of the sentences passed from 
1703 to 1754, transportation was mentioned. He granted that much 
might justly be said against the Privy Council in 1704, but that was 
no reason why the whole of their proceedings should be branded with 
so much infamy. He approved of the manner in which the trial had 
been conducted, and thought the Lord Advocate right in preferring to 
libel sedition, instead of leasing-making. He went over what he con¬ 
ceived to be the distinctions between leasing-making, sedition, and 
treason. He contended that the trial was fair, legal, and could not 
have been conducted in any other way. He complimented the Judges 
and the Lord Advocate, and thought if it was to be lamented that the 
punishment was severe upon men of rank and education, it ought to 
be remembered that their situation was rather an aggravation of their 
guilt than otherwise. He concluded by giving his negative to the 
motion. 

Mr. Adam made a very able and pointed reply, in which he again 
expressed his astonishment that Ministers should advise the execution 
of such sentences against men whose offence might perhaps be traced 
to the doctrines formerly inculcated by some of those who now held 
distinguished situations in the Cabinet. 

Mr. Pitt rose again to say that he saw nothing of promoting a 
Parliamentary Reform charged in the indictment against Mr. Muir, 
but circulating Paine’s book, and inculcating the pernicious doctrines 
it contained. 

Mr. Grey affirmed that if the Right Hon. Gentleman had conde¬ 
scended to read the indictment and the trial, he could not have been 
ignorant that whatever words might be introduced, the substantial 
part of the charge in both cases was promoting Parliamentary Reform, 
and that, too, on principles much less exceptionable than those held 
by persons with whom the Right Hon. Gentleman himself had acted 
in concert. Mr. Grey gave the motion of his Hon. Friend Mr. Adam 
his unqualified support. 

At a quarter past three o’clock in the morning, and after a debate 
of ten hours, the House divided. 


For the Motion, .... 

32 

Against it, .... 

171 

Majority against the Motion, 

139 


(From the Morning Chronicle.') 

The speech of Mr. Adam on the Question of the late Judicial Pro¬ 
ceedings in Scotland, was, in point of arrangement, reasoning, and lan¬ 
guage, one of the ablest discourses we ever heard in Parliament: our 
account is a very feeble outline, and can hardly give an idea of the 
impression which he made on the audience part of the House.—His 
reply was spirited and argumentative. 



158 


List of the Minority on the Motion of Mr. Adam. 


Right Hon. C. J. Fox 
S. Whitbread, Esq. 
Major Maitland 
Lord John Townsend 
Lord William Russell 
Hon. St. A. St. John 
Lord Robert Spencer 
General Fitzpatrick 
Hon. T. Erskine 
William Adam, Esq. 
Dudley North, Esq. 
Thomas Thompson, Esq. 
Henry Howard, Esq. 
Benjamin Vaughan, Esq. 
Colonel Macleod 


Colonel Tarleton 
M. A. Taylor, Esq. 

Philip Francis, Esq. 

James Walwyn, Esq. 

William Plumer, Esq. 

William Smith, Esq. 

James Hare, Esq. 

George Byng, Esq. 

Earl Wycombe 

Hon. Edward Bouverie 

Hon. W. H. Bouverie 

Sir Edward Winnington, Bart. 

R. P. Knight, Esq. 

John Harrison, Esq. 

John Courtenay, Esq. 


R. B. Sheridan, Esq. 


TELLERS. 

Charles Grey, Esq. 


Colonel M‘Leod was the only Scotch Member who voted with 
Mr. Adam for the motion! 

We regret we have not been able to lay our hands on the names of 
the Majority , as they deserved to be published. 


No. XX. 

Tribute to Scotla?id f and to Mr. Muir, by Curran, taken from his 

eloquent Speech in Defence of Mr. Hamilton Rowan.— Jan. 

29, 1794. 

Gentlemen, —I am glad that this question has not been brought 
forward earlier; I rejoice for the sake of the court, of the jury, and 
of the public repose, that this question has not been brought forward 
till now. In Great Britain, analagous circumstances have taken place. 
At the commencement of that unfortunate war, which has deluged all 
Europe with blood, the spirit of the English people was tremblingly 
alive to the terror of French principles; at that moment of general 
paroxysm, to accuse was to convict. The danger loomed larger to 
the public eye, from the misty region through which it was surveyed. 
We measure inaccessible heights by the shadows which they project, 
where the lowness and the distance of the light form the length of the 
shade. 

There is a sort of aspiring and adventurous credulity, which dis¬ 
dains assenting to obvious truths, and delights in catching at the 
improbability of circumstances, as its best ground of faith. To what 
other cause, Gentlemen, can you ascribe, that in the wise, the reflect¬ 
ing, and the philosophic nation of Great Britain, a printer has been 
gravely found guilty of a libel, for publishing those resolutions to 
which the present minister of that kingdom had actually subscribed 
his name ? To ivhat other cause can you ascribe , what in my mind is 
still more astonishing , in such a country as Scotland—a nation east 



159 


in the happy medium between the spiritless acquiescence of submissive 
poverty, and the sturdy credulity of pampered wealth ; cool and ardent; 
adventurous and persevering; winging her eagle flight against the 
blaze of every science, with an eye that never winks, and a wing that 
never tires ; crowned as she is with the spoils of every art, and decked 
with the wreath of every muse, from the deep and scrutinizing researches 
of her Hume, to the sweet and simple, but not less pathetic and sublime 
morality of her Hums — how, from the bosom of a country like that, 
genius, and character , and talents, should be banished to a distant 
barbarous soil ;* condemned to pine under the horrid communion of 
vulgar vice and baseborn profligacy, for twice the period that ordinary 
calculation gives to the continuance of human life ? 

But I will not press an idea that is painful to me, and I am sure 
must be painful to you. 


No. XXI. 

Letter from Mr. Muir to a friend at Cambridge, written on the eve 
of his leaving England. 

My dear Friend, —I received yours at Edinburgh with the sin- 
cerest pleasure; your sentiments and mine are equally accordant, the 
great lesson we have to learn in this world, is submission and resigna¬ 
tion to the will of God. This lesson strikes upon the heart, not by 
the force of cold and abstracted precept, but by the example of Him, 
who was the object of all sufferings, and the pattern of all perfection. 
Much need have 1 to be taught in his school. Hurled, as it were in 
a moment, from some of the most polished societies in Edinburgh and 
London, into one of the hulks upon the Thames, where every mouth 
is opened to blaspheme God, and every hand stretched out to injure a 
neighbour, I cannot divest myself of the feelings of nature; I cannot 
but lament my situation ; and were it not for the hope of immortality, 
founded upon our common Christianity, alas! I might accuse the 
Father of all Justice and of all Mercy with severity. But blessed be 
God, every thing in the great system of nature, every thing in the 
little system of individual man, corresponds with the great dispensa¬ 
tions of the gospel, and demonstrates its efficacy. 

Much consolation does the reflection now afford me, that in pros¬ 
perity I always regarded this revelation of heaven with the most pro¬ 
found reverence. 

In solitary exile there is dignity, there is a conscious pride, which, 
even independent of philosophy, may support the mind, but I question 
much, if any of the illustrious of ancient ages, could have supported 
an exile similar to mine, surrounded by the veriest outcasts of society, 
without the aid of religion and of the example of Jesus. 

I have been separated from Mr. Palmer, he is in one hulk, I am in 
a different one. The separation is an act of unnecessary cruelty. 

* Mr. Muir was introduced to Curran when in Ireland, and became personally 
acquainted with him. 


160 


My state of health is poorly. The seeds of a consumption, I appre¬ 
hend, are planted in my breast. I suffer no acute pain, but daily 
experience a gradual decay. 

Of every thing relating to my future destination, I am utterly 
ignorant. 

Honour me by your correspondence, I am sure it will ameliorate 
my heart. 

Farewell! my truly worthy and respectable friend. 

Thomas Muir. 


NOTE. 

Since the preceding pages have come from the Press—an unex¬ 
pected and most extraordinary document has been put into our hands. 
It is an original letter w'ritten by Mr. Skirving to the Governor of 
New South Wales, and evidently revised by Mr. Muir, detailing an 
account of their voyage from England to Sydney.—And we have 
been struck with horror to find that a cold-blooded—cool—and pre¬ 
meditated plan seems to have been formed for murdering Muir and 
his companions on the passage, under the false—the hatched pretence 
of Mutiny ! 

Poor Muir was brutally knocked down by a Soldier, but Provi¬ 
dence again interfered to save his life !—We shall probe this matter 
to the bottom. The People of England shall hear of it. The letter 
(holograph of Skirving) is by far too long to enable us—consistently 
with our previous arrangements, to print it, as an additional Appendix. 
But we are perfectly ready and willing to exhibit the original to any 
person who may call upon us wishing to see it. 

28, Portland Street, Laurieston, 

Glasgow, 13 th April, 1831. 


ERRATA. 

Page 6, for “ Society,” read “ Societies.” 

Note, p. 8, for “ have," read “ has.” 

Page 18, line 22 from top, for “ is,” read “ was.” 

Page 20, fourth line from top, for “ And,” read “ Nay.” 


THE END. 


Edward Khull, Printer, Glasgow. 




























































- 














































' I ■ E • - 






• - 












